National
Follow judicial propriety, SC tells judges
By Our Legal Correspondent
NEW DELHI, DEC. 7. The Supreme Court has ruled that if a two-judge Bench (of the apex court) disagreed with the decision of a three-judge Bench, it cannot straightaway refer the issue to a five-judge Bench.
A Constitution bench comprising the Chief Justice, Mr. S.P. Bharucha, Mr. Justice S.S.M. Quadri, Mr. Justice U.C. Banerjee, Mr. Justice S.N. Variava and Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil, while giving the above ruling observed ``judicial discipline and propriety demands that a Bench of two judges should follow a decision of a Bench of three judges.''
The Bench said ``but if a two-judge Bench concludes that an earlier judgment of three judges is incorrect that in no circumstances can it be followed, the proper course for it to adopt is to refer the matter before it to a three-judge Bench setting out the reasons why it could not agree with the earlier judgment''.
``If the three-judge Bench also comes to the conclusion that the earlier judgment of three judges is incorrect, reference to a five-judge Bench is justified'', the Bench added.
The court, however, made it clear that the only situation when a two-judge Bench ``may refer a matter directly to a Constitution Bench is when Article 145 (3) is attracted''. (According to this provision, the minimum number of judges who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any reference under Article 143 shall be five).
The Bench agreed with the Attorney-General, Mr. Soli Sorabjee, who drew the attention of the court to an earlier decision where it was held that ``no coordinate Bench of this court can even comment upon, let alone sit in judgment over the discretion exercised or judgment rendered in a matter before another coordinated Bench''.
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
National
|
