Full Bench reference procedure and Article 31C protection for acquisition provisions against constitutional challenge

A learned single judge could not directly refer a matter to a Full Bench where the appellate rules required an initial reference through a Division Bench with recorded reasons; the reference route had to follow the ordinary judicial channel. The commentary also notes that sections 5(1) and 5(2) of the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976 were treated as protected by Article 31C because they implemented the Directive Principles in Article 39(b) and (c). On that basis, the challenge under Articles 14 and 19 was rejected and the earlier binding view was not reopened.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a learned single judge could directly refer a matter to a Full Bench without first placing it before a Division Bench with reasons. (ii) Whether sections 5(1) and 5(2) of the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976 were protected by Article 31C of the Constitution of India and therefore not vulnerable to challenge under Articles 14 and 19.

Issue (i): Whether a learned single judge could directly refer a matter to a Full Bench without first placing it before a Division Bench with reasons.

Analysis: The appellate side rules contemplated a reference to a Full Bench through the ordinary judicial channel and not by a direct reference from a single judge. Rule 2 required the judges constituting the Bench to agree that a question of law should be referred, while Rule 6 empowered only the Chief Justice to direct hearing by a Full Bench. The prior Full Bench decisions were treated as establishing that a single judge must first refer the matter to a Division Bench, stating reasons, and the Division Bench would then decide whether a Full Bench reference was necessary.

Conclusion: A learned single judge could not directly refer the matter to a Full Bench without first referring it to a Division Bench with reasons.

Issue (ii): Whether sections 5(1) and 5(2) of the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976 were protected by Article 31C of the Constitution of India and therefore not vulnerable to challenge under Articles 14 and 19.

Analysis: The earlier Division Bench decision had upheld the acquisition enactments after considering their scheme, objects, and the protection afforded by Article 31C. It had held that the impugned provisions were integral to the statutory scheme implementing the Directive Principles in Article 39(b) and (c), and that section 5(2) did not confer any perpetual lease but only a one-time option on existing terms. In view of that binding decision, no sufficient ground was shown to revisit the constitutional validity of the provisions.

Conclusion: Sections 5(1) and 5(2) were treated as protected by Article 31C, and the challenge under Articles 14 and 19 was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the constitutional challenge to the impugned acquisition provisions was not entertained again in light of the earlier binding view.

Ratio Decidendi: A single judge cannot directly make a Full Bench reference when the rules require an initial reference through a Division Bench, and statutory provisions enacted to give effect to Article 39(b) and (c) are protected by Article 31C against challenge under Articles 14 and 19.

---