A Guide to Litigating Identity Systems PART FIVE: PATHS FORWARD DEMOCRACY, THE RULE OF LAW, AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE 71. This analysis of the jurisprudence on identity systems leads to the conclusion that the manner in which identity systems are introduced and designed poses serious threats to democracy, the rule of law, and access to justice. The Jamaican Supreme Court observed that governance in a constitutional democracy based on the rule of law is an institutional arrangement, with each arm performing its designated functions.313 However, the adoption of identity systems is rarely preceded by rigorous legislative debates and democratic deliberation.314 72. According to the dissenting opinion in the Aadhaar judgment, the passing of the Aadhaar Act as a “Money” Bill was unconstitutional. Under the Articles of the Indian Constitution, a Money Bill is a category of bill (draft law) that contains provisions to deal with the specific list of matters such as the withdrawal of money from the Consolidated Fund of India and the regulation of taxes.315 The dissent in the Aadhaar judgment held that the incorrect classification of the draft Aadhaar legislation as a Money Bill, amounted to “a 313 Julian J. Robinson v. The Attorney General of Jamaica, Claim No. 2018HCV01788, ¶ 167 (2019). 314 See Privacy International, The Clash between Democracy and Biometrics, 31 January 2018, https://medium.com/@privacyint/identity-policies-the-clash-between-democracy-and-biometrics95adabd9f263 (last visited 20 November 2019). 315 Article 110 of the Indian Constitution. 72