Per Bhushan, J.
Article 243-G is an enabling provision, which enables the State Legislature, by law, to endow the panchayats with such powers and authorities as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government. The items on which State, by law, can endow panchayats in the Eleventh Schedule are items to deal with subjects enumerated therein. For example, Item 16 deals with poverty alleviation programme and Item 28 deals with Public Distribution System. State is fully competent to make laws to authorise the panchayats to take over all the matters enumerated in the Eleventh Schedule. The question to be considered is as to whether the Aadhaar Act in any manner militates against the constitutional provisions of Article 243-G. The Aadhaar Act is an Act enacted by Parliament, which is referable to List I Entry 97. The Aadhaar Act has been enacted to provide for efficient, transparent and targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services, the expenditure for which is incurred from the Consolidated Fund of India, to individuals residing in India through assigning of unique identity numbers to such individuals and for matters connected therewith. The Act, thus, has been enacted to regulate the expenditure, which is incurred from the Consolidated Fund of India. No conflict between the Aadhaar Act and any law, which may be enacted by State under List II is seen. Even if any conflict is supposed, the doctrine of pith and substance has to be applied to find out nature of two legislations. In pith and substance, the Aadhaar Act cannot be said to be entrenching upon any law, which may be made by the State under Item 5 of List II.
(Para 757)
Article 243-G read with the Eleventh Schedule is not a source of legislative power, and it is only an enabling provision that empowers a State to endow functions and devolve powers and responsibilities to local bodies by enacting relevant laws. Hence, the submission that the Aadhaar Act is ultra vires to Article 243-G and Eleventh Schedule to the Constitution, is rejected.
(Para 760)
State of U.P v. Zila Parishad, Ghaziabad, (2013) 11 SCC 783 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 607, affirmed
Zila Panchayat, Ghaziabad v. State of U.P, 2003 SCC OnLine All 525 : (2003) 5 AWC 3978; U.P Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh v. Daya Ram Saroj, (2007) 2 SCC 138 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 773, cited
ZZ. Human and Civil Rights — Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 — S. 33(1) — Authority competent to direct revelation of Aadhaar data under, is District Judge — Hence held, such order passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class was without jurisdiction, and hence quashed
(Paras 934 and 935)
Uidai v. CBI, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 4753, reversed
Uidai v. CBI, (2017) 7 SCC 157; Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. Petitioner(S) v. Baisil Attipetty (S)., 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1734; Union Of India Petitioner(S) v. V. Viswanadham (S)., 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1735; Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Paikaray, 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1688; Uidai v. CBI, WP (Cri) No. 10 of 2014, order dated 18-3-2014 (Bom), referred to
D/61187.C
Comments