TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (12) TMI 350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of this Court which on 25-8-1986 directed 'rule nisi' to be issued. On 18-3-1994 a two-Judge Bench directed the matter to be listed, before a seven-Judge Bench for hearing. On 20-7-1994 the matter did come up before a seven-Judge Bench which adjourned the hearing awaiting the decision in W.P. No. 317 of 1993. On 26-7-2004 IA No. 4 has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 seeking a direction that the matter be listed before a Division Bench of two judges. Implicitly, the application seeks a direction for non-listing before a Bench of seven Judges and rather the matter being listed for hearing before a Bench of two or three judges as is the normal practice of this Court. In the contents of the application reliance has been placed on the Constitution Bench decisions of this Court in Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Mumbai Shramik Sangha & Ors. - (2001) 4 SCC 448 followed in four subsequent Constitution Bench decisions namely Pradip Chandra Parija & Ors. v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik & Ors. - (2002) 1 SCC 1; Chandra Prakash & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2002) 4 SCC 234, Vishweshwaraiah Iron & Steel Ltd. v. Abdul Gani & Ors. - (2002) 10 SCC 437 and Arya Samaj Education Trust & Ors. v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quest the Chief Justice for the matter being placed for hearing before a three-Judge Bench which may agree or disagree with the view of the law taken earlier by the three-Judge Bench. As already noted this view has been followed and reiterated by at leasts three subsequent Constitution Benches referred to hereinabove. 6. Ms. Indra Jaisingh, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the view of the law taken by the abovesaid four Constitution Benches is per incuriam and is not the correct law as previous decision of this Court by a Constitution Bench in Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by Lrs. etc. (1989) 2 SCC 754 takes a contrary view and being an earlier decision was binding on the subsequent Benches. We do not agree with the submission of the learned senior counsel that the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/applicant are per incuriam. She has also placed reliance on a Constitution Bench decision in Union of India & Anr. v. Hansoli Devi & Ors. - (2002) 7 SCC 273 wherein the Constitution Bench heard a Reference made by two-Judge Bench expressing disagreement with an earlier three-Judge Bench decision. 7. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n was not whether the Supreme Court is bound by its own previous decisions; the question was under what circumstances and within what limits and in what manner should the highest Court overturn its own pronouncements. In our opinion, what was working in the mind of His Lordship was that being the highest Court of the country, it was open for this Court not to feel bound by its own previous decisions because if that was not permitted, the march of Judge-made law and the development of constitutional jurisprudence would come to a standstill. However, the doctrine of binding precedent could not be given a go-by. Quoting from Dr. Alan Paterson's Law Lords (pp.156-157), His Lordship referred to several criteria articulated by Lord Reid. It may be useful to reproduce herein the said principles :- (1) The freedom granted by the 1966 Practice Statement ought to be exercised sparingly (the 'use sparingly'/criterion) (Jones v. Secretary of State for Social Services, 1972 AC 944, 966). (2) A decision ought not to be overruled if to do so would upset the legitimate expectations of people who have entered into contracts or settlements or otherwise regulated their affairs in reliance on the va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so lead to inconsistency in decisions on points of law; consistency and certainty in the development of law and its contemporary status, both would be immediate casualty. 11. In Raghubir Singh & Ors. case (supra), a Bench of two learned Judges had made a reference to a Larger Bench for reconsideration of the questions decided earlier by two Division Benches of the quorum of two and three respectively. The Constitution Bench then opined that the matter could be heard by the Constitution Bench on such reference. It is pertinent to note that in Raghubir Singh & Ors. case the Constitution Bench has nowhere approved the practice and propriety of two-Judge Bench making a reference straightaway to Constitution Bench disagreeing with a three-Judge Bench decision. On the contrary, the Constitution Bench had itself felt inclined to hear the issue arising for decision and therefore did not think it to be necessary to refer the matter back to a Bench of three Judges. Similar was the situation in Union of India & Anr. v. Hansoli Devi & Ors., (2002) 7 SCC 273. Therein the Constitution Bench has reiterated the principle of judicial discipline and propriety demanding that a Bench of two learned J....