Given the constitutional questions involved, the Supreme Court referred the PILs to

a five-judge Constitution Bench. Further, it specified that Aadhaar would remain

purely voluntary until such time it delivered its final judgment.

Nevertheless, in 2016, the Union made Aadhaar mandatory for availing of certain
services and benefits. Instead of enacting the NIA Bill, which was under challenge
before the Court, Parliament passed a near identical piece of legislation – the
Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services)
Act, 2016 (‘Aadhaar Act’). Adding to the controversy, the Lok Sabha passed the
Aadhaar Act without the scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha, as it had introduced it as a
Money Bill.

Given the constitutional questions involved, the Supreme Court referred the PILs to
a five-judge Constitution Bench. Further, it specified that Aadhaar would remain
purely voluntary until such time it delivered its final judgment.

Nevertheless, in 2016, the Union made Aadhaar mandatory for availing of certain
services and benefits. Instead of enacting the NIA Bill, which was under challenge
before the Court, Parliament passed a near identical piece of legislation – the
Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services)
Act, 2016 (‘Aadhaar Act’). Adding to the controversy, the Lok Sabha passed the
Aadhaar Act without the scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha, as it had introduced it as a
Money Bill.

Given the constitutional questions involved, the Supreme Court referred the PILs to
a five-judge Constitution Bench. Further, it specified that Aadhaar would remain
purely voluntary until such time it delivered its final judgment.

Nevertheless, in 2016, the Union made Aadhaar mandatory for availing of certain
services and benefits. Instead of enacting the NIA Bill, which was under challenge
before the Court, Parliament passed a near identical piece of legislation – the
Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services)
Act, 2016 (‘Aadhaar Act’). Adding to the controversy, the Lok Sabha passed the
Aadhaar Act without the scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha, as it had introduced it as a
Money Bill.

Given the constitutional questions involved, the Supreme Court referred the PILs to
a five-judge Constitution Bench. Further, it specified that Aadhaar would remain
purely voluntary until such time it delivered its final judgment.

Nevertheless, in 2016, the Union made Aadhaar mandatory for availing of certain
services and benefits. Instead of enacting the NIA Bill, which was under challenge
before the Court, Parliament passed a near identical piece of legislation – the
Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services)
Act, 2016 (‘Aadhaar Act’). Adding to the controversy, the Lok Sabha passed the
Aadhaar Act without the scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha, as it had introduced it as a
Money Bill.

Given the constitutional questions involved, the Supreme Court referred the PILs to
a five-judge Constitution Bench. Further, it specified that Aadhaar would remain
purely voluntary until such time it delivered its final judgment.

Nevertheless, in 2016, the Union made Aadhaar mandatory for availing of certain
services and benefits. Instead of enacting the NIA Bill, which was under challenge
before the Court, Parliament passed a near identical piece of legislation – the
Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services)
Act, 2016 (‘Aadhaar Act’). Adding to the controversy, the Lok Sabha passed the
Aadhaar Act without the scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha, as it had introduced it as a
Money Bill.
Given the constitutional questions involved, the Supreme Court referred the PILs to
a five-judge Constitution Bench. Further, it specified that Aadhaar would remain
purely voluntary until such time it delivered its final judgment.

Nevertheless, in 2016, the Union made Aadhaar mandatory for availing of certain
services and benefits. Instead of enacting the NIA Bill, which was under challenge
before the Court, Parliament passed a near identical piece of legislation – the
Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services)
Act, 2016 (‘Aadhaar Act’). Adding to the controversy, the Lok Sabha passed the
Aadhaar Act without the scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha, as it had introduced it as a
Money Bill.

Given the constitutional questions involved, the Supreme Court referred the PILs to
a five-judge Constitution Bench. Further, it specified that Aadhaar would remain
purely voluntary until such time it delivered its final judgment.

Nevertheless, in 2016, the Union made Aadhaar mandatory for availing of certain
services and benefits. Instead of enacting the NIA Bill, which was under challenge
before the Court, Parliament passed a near identical piece of legislation – the
Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services)
Act, 2016 (‘Aadhaar Act’). Adding to the controversy, the Lok Sabha passed the
Aadhaar Act without the scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha, as it had introduced it as a
Money Bill.

Given the constitutional questions involved, the Supreme Court referred the PILs to
a five-judge Constitution Bench. Further, it specified that Aadhaar would remain
purely voluntary until such time it delivered its final judgment.

Nevertheless, in 2016, the Union made Aadhaar mandatory for availing of certain
services and benefits. Instead of enacting the NIA Bill, which was under challenge
before the Court, Parliament passed a near identical piece of legislation – the
Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services)
Act, 2016 (‘Aadhaar Act’). Adding to the controversy, the Lok Sabha passed the
Aadhaar Act without the scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha, as it had introduced it as a
Money Bill.

Given the constitutional questions involved, the Supreme Court referred the PILs to
a five-judge Constitution Bench. Further, it specified that Aadhaar would remain
purely voluntary until such time it delivered its final judgment.

Nevertheless, in 2016, the Union made Aadhaar mandatory for availing of certain
services and benefits. Instead of enacting the NIA Bill, which was under challenge
before the Court, Parliament passed a near identical piece of legislation – the
Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services)
Act, 2016 (‘Aadhaar Act’). Adding to the controversy, the Lok Sabha passed the
Aadhaar Act without the scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha, as it had introduced it as a
Money Bill.

Given the constitutional questions involved, the Supreme Court referred the PILs to
a five-judge Constitution Bench. Further, it specified that Aadhaar would remain
purely voluntary until such time it delivered its final judgment.

Nevertheless, in 2016, the Union made Aadhaar mandatory for availing of certain
services and benefits. Instead of enacting the NIA Bill, which was under challenge
before the Court, Parliament passed a near identical piece of legislation – the
Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services)
Act, 2016 (‘Aadhaar Act’). Adding to the controversy, the Lok Sabha passed the
Aadhaar Act without the scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha, as it had introduced it as a
Money Bill.

Given the constitutional questions involved, the Supreme Court referred the PILs to
a five-judge Constitution Bench. Further, it specified that Aadhaar would remain
purely voluntary until such time it delivered its final judgment.

Nevertheless, in 2016, the Union made Aadhaar mandatory for availing of certain
services and benefits. Instead of enacting the NIA Bill, which was under challenge
before the Court, Parliament passed a near identical piece of legislation – the
Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services)
Act, 2016 (‘Aadhaar Act’). Adding to the controversy, the Lok Sabha passed the
Aadhaar Act without the scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha, as it had introduced it as a
Money Bill.

Given the constitutional questions involved, the Supreme Court referred the PILs to
a five-judge Constitution Bench. Further, it specified that Aadhaar would remain
purely voluntary until such time it delivered its final judgment.

Nevertheless, in 2016, the Union made Aadhaar mandatory for availing of certain
services and benefits. Instead of enacting the NIA Bill, which was under challenge
before the Court, Parliament passed a near identical piece of legislation – the
Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services)
Act, 2016 (‘Aadhaar Act’). Adding to the controversy, the Lok Sabha passed the
Aadhaar Act without the scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha, as it had introduced it as a
Money Bill.

Given the constitutional questions involved, the Supreme Court referred the PILs to
a five-judge Constitution Bench. Further, it specified that Aadhaar would remain
purely voluntary until such time it delivered its final judgment.

Nevertheless, in 2016, the Union made Aadhaar mandatory for availing of certain
services and benefits. Instead of enacting the NIA Bill, which was under challenge
before the Court, Parliament passed a near identical piece of legislation – the
Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services)
Act, 2016 (‘Aadhaar Act’). Adding to the controversy, the Lok Sabha passed the
Aadhaar Act without the scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha, as it had introduced it as a
Money Bill.