2004 (12) TMI 350 - SC - VAT / Sales Tax

Decisions by larger benches bind subsequent equal or smaller benches; only roster direction or seised larger bench can alter

CENTRAL BOARD OF DAWOODI BOHRA COMMUNITY Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

The SC held that a decision by a larger bench is binding on subsequent benches of lesser or equal strength; a lesser quorum cannot question or overrule a ... Precedents - Decision of higher bench - Binding nature - seeking re-consideration, and over-ruling, of the decision of this Court in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb's case - Held that:- A bench of lesser quorum cannot express disagreement with, or question the correctness of, the view taken by a Bench of larger Quorum - Exceptions- (i) The abovesaid rules do not bind the discretion of the Chief Justice in whom vests the power of framing the roster and who can direct any particular matter to be placed for hearing before any particular Bench of any strength, and (ii) in case larger Bench itself feels that the view taken by lower bench needs correction or reconsideration. Having carefully considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the parties and having examined the law laid down by the Constitution Benches in the abovesaid decisions, we would like to sum up the legal position in the following terms : - (1) The law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding' on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength. (2) A Bench of lesser quorum cannot; doubt the correctness of the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing, before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration. It will be open only for a Bench of co-equal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of co-equal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted. (3) The above rules are subject to two exceptions : (i) The abovesaid rules do not bind the discretion of the Chief Justice in whom vests the power of framing the roster and who can direct any particular matter to be placed for hearing before any particular Bench of any strength; and (ii) In spite of the rules laid down hereinabove, if the matter has already come up for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum and that Bench itself feels that the view of the law taken by a Bench of lesser quorum, which view is in doubt, needs correction or reconsideration then by way of exception (and not as a rule) and for reasons it may proceed to hear the case and examine the correctness of the previous decision in question dispensing with the need of a specific reference or the order of Chief Justice constituting the Bench and such listing. Such was the situation in Raghubir Singh & Ors. and Hansoli Devi & Ors. [2002 (9) TMI 799 - SUPREME COURT]. So far as the present case is concerned, there is no reference made by any Bench of any strength at any time for hearing by a Larger Bench and doubting the correctness of the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb's case[1962 (1) TMI 66 - SUPREME COURT (LB)]. The order dated 18-3-1994 by two-Judge Bench cannot be construed as an Order of Reference. At no point of time the Chief Justice of India has directed the matter to be placed for hearing before a Constitution Bench or a Bench of seven-Judges. We are satisfied that the matter should be placed for hearing before a Constitution Bench (of Five Judges) and not before a Larger Bench of seven Judges. it is only if the Constitution Bench doubts the correctness of the law laid down in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb's case, that it may opine in favour of hearing by a Larger Bench consisting of seven Judges or such other strength as the Chief Justice of India may in exercise of his power to frame a roster may deem fit to constitute. Ordered accordingly. Issues Involved:1. Reconsideration of the decision in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay.2. Appropriate bench strength for hearing the matter.3. Judicial discipline and propriety regarding bench strength and precedents.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Reconsideration of the decision in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay:The petition sought reconsideration and overruling of the decision in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, where a five-Judge Bench had ruled the Bombay Prevention of Ex-communication Act, 1949, ultra vires the Constitution as it violated Article 26(b) and was not saved by Article 25(2). The petitioners requested a writ of mandamus directing the State of Maharashtra to enforce the Act.2. Appropriate bench strength for hearing the matter:The matter initially came before a two-Judge Bench, which issued 'rule nisi'. Subsequently, it was directed to be listed before a seven-Judge Bench. Respondent No. 2 filed an application seeking the matter to be listed before a Division Bench of two judges, citing Constitution Bench decisions that a Bench of lesser quorum cannot question the correctness of a decision by a Bench of larger quorum. The petitioners opposed this, insisting the matter must come before a seven-Judge Bench due to the need to reconsider a five-Judge Bench decision.3. Judicial discipline and propriety regarding bench strength and precedents:The Court examined the principle that a decision by a Bench of larger strength binds subsequent Benches of lesser or co-equal strength. The Court referred to several Constitution Bench decisions, including Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Mumbai Shramik Sangha, Pradip Chandra Parija & Ors. v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik & Ors., and others, which reiterated that a Bench of lesser quorum cannot express disagreement with a decision by a Bench of larger quorum. Instead, it should refer the matter to the Chief Justice for consideration by a Bench of appropriate strength.The Court also addressed the argument by Ms. Indira Jaisingh that the decisions cited by respondent No. 2 were per incuriam due to an earlier contrary decision in Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh. The Court disagreed, noting that the view taken in Parija's case and subsequent cases could not be considered per incuriam as they had considered and followed the precedent.Conclusion:The Court summarized the legal position, affirming that:1. Decisions by a Bench of larger strength are binding on subsequent Benches of lesser or co-equal strength.2. A Bench of lesser quorum cannot doubt the correctness of a decision by a Bench of larger quorum and should refer such matters to the Chief Justice.3. Exceptions include the Chief Justice's discretion in framing the roster and situations where a larger Bench already hearing the matter feels a need for correction or reconsideration.In the present case, there was no reference by any Bench for a larger Bench hearing or direction by the Chief Justice for a seven-Judge Bench. Therefore, the Court ordered the matter to be placed before a Constitution Bench of five Judges, which could opine on the need for a larger Bench if it doubted the correctness of the decision in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb's case.Disposition:The application (IA No. 4) was disposed of, with the matter ordered to be listed before a Constitution Bench of five Judges.