The Doctrine of Stare Decisis is a concept derived from the English Common Law and is also known as the Doctrine of Precedents. The Doctrine States that judicial pronouncements have a binding force for future.
Article 141 of the Constitution of India talks about the Doctrine of Stare Decisis. The following Article states that “The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India”.
Before proceeding ahead with the main question, it is important to understand certain key terms for better understanding. It is important to understand the various types of Benches vis-à-vis the number of judges adjudicating a matter.
i. Single Judge: Involves a single judge presiding over the matter.
ii. Division Bench: Involves two judges presiding over the matter.
iii. Full Bench: Involves a minimum of three and a maximum of 4 judges presiding over the matter.
iv. Constitution Bench: Involves a minimum of five Judges presiding over the matter and may keep increasing as and when the case requires according to the view of the hon’ble Chief Justice.
As a general rule of practice, in order to provide an authoritative value to a judgment, the number of judges constituting the Bench is considered an important aspect. Thus, greater the number of judges on the Bench, the greater is its authoritative value. However, what would be the situation of the case if a Constitution Bench of 5-judges unanimously delivers a decision and thereafter, another Constitution Bench comprising of 7-judges by way of 4:3 majority overrules the previous decision of the Constitution Bench comprising of 5-judges? Worth a thought!
The question as to whose judgment would prevail could be traced back from Queen Empress v. Muyappa Bin Ningapa; (1920) 45 Bom. 834 , F.B. wherein it was considered by the hon’ble High Court of Bombay that a unanimous decision of 4-judges prevailed over a judgment of a 4:1 majority Bench.
Again, in Emperor v. Ningapa Ramappa Kurbar; AIR 1941 Bom 408, the hon’ble High Court of Bombay, referring to its earlier judgment in Queen Empress v. Muyappa Bin Ningapa (supra) held that:
“There can be no doubt that a full bench can overrule a division bench, and that a full bench must consist of three or more Judges but it would seem anomalous to hold that a later full bench can overrule an earlier full bench, merely because the later bench consists of more Judges than the earlier. If that were the rule, it would mean that a bench of seven Judges, by a majority of four to three, could overrule a unanimous decision of a bench of six Judges, though all the Judges were of co-ordinate jurisdiction.”
Thus, according to the above judgments it can be understood that a unanimous decision bestowed greater authoritative value than that delivered by way of majority. However, the issue did not achieve the character of res-judicata and remained open for further consideration.
Thus, in SCAORA v. Union of India; (2016) 5 SCC 1 the hon’ble Supreme Court was again struck with this conundrum of precedence. Hon’ble Mr. M.B. Lokur J. (as he then was) referring to the decision in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. I.I.C.B; (2002) 5 SCC 111 reiterated that the Bench in Pradeep’s case had by way of 5:2 majority overruled a previous judgment pronounced unanimously by another Constitution Bench comprising of 5-judges. His Lordship while dealing with this conundrum questioned:
“Is it that only the numbers in a subsequent Bench are what really matters?”
Thus, in 2022, a Constitution Bench comprising of 5-judges was constituted by the hon’ble Supreme Court in Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd. v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1247 to determine two issues; one of which was:
“…ii) What should be the proper guidelines for the future for overruling an earlier decision of this Court, and to what extent should the Courts be guided by the propositions in Ningappa Ramappa Kurbar v. Emperor, the observations of Lokur, J. in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India and the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Harper v. National Coal Board.”
Thus, hon’ble Ms. Indira Banerjee J. on behalf of Mr. Surya Kant, Mr. M. M. Sundresh, Mr. Sudhanshu Dhulia JJ. and herself, relying on the decision of the Constitution Bench in Dr, Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister; (2021) 8 SCC 1 held that “[I]n view of Article 145(5) of the Constitution of India concurrence of a majority of the judges at the hearing will be considered as a judgment or opinion of the Court” and thus, “the majority decision of a Bench of larger strength would prevail over the decision of a Bench of lesser strength, irrespective of the number of Judges constituting the majority.”
Thus, the law propounded by the hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case clarifies that a unanimous decision of a 5-judge Constitution Bench can be overruled by a 4:3 majority judgment of another Constitution Bench.
Comments