Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Another
"The law declared by a larger Bench binds all later Benches of lesser or co-equal strength; a smaller Bench that doubts it cannot disagree but may only ask the Chief Justice to place the matter before a larger Bench, while a co-equal Bench may refer its doubt to a larger Bench, subject to the Chief Justice's power as master of the roster."
Issues Before the Court
- (i)
Whether a writ petition seeking reconsideration of a five-judge Bench decision must be heard by a Bench of seven Judges, as a two-judge Bench had directed, or may be heard by a Bench of five?
- (ii)
What is the binding effect of a decision of a larger or co-equal Bench on later Benches of the Supreme Court, and how should a Bench that doubts such a decision proceed?
Law & Rules Applicable
- (i)
Constitution of India, Article 141 (law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all courts) and Article 145(3) (a minimum of five Judges to decide substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution).
- (ii)
The authority of the Chief Justice of India, as master of the roster, to constitute Benches and allocate cases.
- (iii)
Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, the five-judge decision whose reconsideration was sought.
Application to Facts & Circumstances
In 1962, in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb, a five-judge Bench struck down the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949 as violating the rights of the religious denomination under Article 26. In 1986 the petitioners filed a writ petition seeking reconsideration of that decision, and in 1994 a two-judge Bench directed that the matter be placed before a Bench of seven Judges. The question was whether that direction was proper.
Speaking for the Constitution Bench, Lahoti C.J. stated the rules of precedent. The law laid down by a Bench of larger strength binds any later Bench of lesser or co-equal strength. A Bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree with or dissent from the view of a larger Bench; if it doubts that view, all it can do is invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request that the matter be placed before a larger Bench. Only a Bench of co-equal strength may express doubt about an earlier decision of co-equal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed before a larger Bench.
The rules are subject to two exceptions. They do not bind the discretion of the Chief Justice, as master of the roster, to constitute Benches and to direct that a matter be heard by a Bench of any strength. And a larger Bench already hearing a matter may, for reasons it records, examine the correctness of a smaller Bench's view without a formal reference.
Applying those rules, the two-judge Bench could not itself direct a hearing by seven Judges in order to reconsider a five-judge decision. The matter was to be heard by a Constitution Bench of five Judges, which could refer it to a larger Bench if it doubted the 1962 decision.
Conclusion & Ruling
- (i)
The writ petition was directed to be heard by a Constitution Bench of five Judges, leaving it to that Bench to refer the matter to a larger Bench if it doubted the 1962 decision.
- (ii)
A decision of a larger Bench binds later Benches of lesser or co-equal strength; a smaller Bench that doubts it can only request the Chief Justice to place the matter before a larger Bench.
- (iii)
The rules do not limit the Chief Justice's power as master of the roster, and a larger Bench already seized of a matter may reconsider a smaller Bench's view without a formal reference.
Authorities Cited
Full texts open on Indian Kanoon in a new tab.
- Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, [1962] Supp 2 SCR 496 : AIR 1962 SC 853Full text of Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay on Indian Kanoon