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

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 larger-bench view and may only request the Chief Justice to place the matter before a larger bench. Two exceptions apply: the Chief Justice may direct roster placement to any bench strength, and a larger bench already seised may itself reconsider a prior view. The present matter is to be placed before a Constitution Bench of five judges; only if that bench doubts the earlier ruling may it seek hearing by a larger bench.

---

---

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.

---