A Guide to Litigating Identity Systems fraud on the constitution” because it led to the bypassing of the Upper House of the Parliament (Rajya Sabha) and undermined the constitutional scheme of bicameralism and the legitimacy of democratic institutions.316 While this was the position adopted in the dissenting opinion of the Aadhaar judgment, it is pertinent to note that the Indian Supreme Court has, in a subsequent decision, questioned the majority’s decision that Aadhaar was correctly certified as a Money Bill. The court referred the question of whether the Aadhaar Act was correctly certified as a Money Bill for reconsideration to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court. 317 73. Petitioners in the Kenyan case similarly raised arguments regarding the lack of public participation in the legislation establishing the Kenyan national identity system, in particular the use of an omnibus bill that the Kenyan High Court previously cautioned against using for anything other than nonsubstantive amendments.318 While the Kenyan court ultimately upheld the method used to introduce the legislation, this instance provides another example of the need for respect for democratic processes that allow for complete public participation in the design and implementation of proposed national identity systems. The rule of law and the proper functioning of democracies also depends on the efficient functioning of legal institutions to ensure access to justice for all. 74. An important element of the rule of law is judicial oversight, an element that takes on particular significance in the implementation of identity systems given their wide-ranging implications on individuals rights and liberties. The Indian Supreme Court in the Aadhaar judgment found that Section 47 of the enacting legislation, which barred courts from admitting complaint in relation to the Aadhaar Act unless filed by the UIDAI (the statutory authority 316 Aadhaar Judgment, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012 & connected matters, ¶ 117 of dissent (2018). 317 IndiaToday, “Supreme Court re-examines Aadhaar as money bill, refers issue to larger bench,” 4 November 2019, https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/supreme-court-re-examines-aadhaar-as-money-bill-refers-issue-tolarger-bench-1618683-2019-11-14 (last visited 20 November 2019). 318 Huduma Namba Judgment, Nubian Rights Forum and Others v. The Hon. Attorney General, Consolidated Petitions No. 56, 58 & 59 of 2019 ¶ 676 (2020). 73