1. Petition under Article 32 challenging a majority judgment of a five-judge Bench. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 921
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T.Thomas : S.B.Majmudar : S.Saghir Ahmad
Centre For Public Interest Litigation
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : d-7490 of 1999
Date of Decision : 5/1/00
Advocates Appeared: Bhushan Prashant : Divan Anil B. : Kapoor Sanjeev : Tiwari Divya : Verma Narender Kr
A petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging a majority judgment of a five-judge bench, especially when seeking a declaration on the constitutional position, is referred to a five-judge bench for consideration.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Challenge to judgment of five-Judge Bench - Maintainability - Petitioner seeks declaration regarding the correctness of the constitutional position with prospective effect - Matter referred to a Bench of five learned Judges for consideration. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the majority judgment of a five-judge bench. The petitioner sought an amendment to the prayer in the petition and requested a declaration regarding the correctness of the constitutional position, praying that such declaration be given prospective effect.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the draft amendment of the prayer in the writ petition and directed that the matter be placed before a bench of five learned judges for consideration.
Issues: Whether a petition under Article 32 challenging a majority judgment of a five-judge bench should be referred to a bench of five judges for consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: Since the petition challenges a majority judgment of a five-judge bench and seeks a declaration on the constitutional position, it is appropriate that the matter be considered by a bench of five judges.
Result: Matter referred to a five-judge bench.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Maintainability of a petition challenging a Constitution Bench judgment and request for a declaration on the constitutional position with prospective effect. (Para 2 )
3. The court found it appropriate to refer the challenge against a five-judge Bench judgment to a five-judge Bench for consideration. (Para 2 )
4. A challenge to a majority judgment of a five-judge Bench under Article 32 may be referred to a five-judge Bench. (Para 2 )
5. Prayer amendment allowed and matter referred to a five-judge Bench. (Para 1 , 2 )
6. Can a petition under Article 32 challenge a majority judgment of a five-judge Bench?
Yes, the court may direct such a matter to be placed before a Bench of five learned Judges for consideration of the constitutional position and maintainability. (Para 2 )
7. Is the amendment of a prayer in a writ petition permissible?
Yes, the court may allow the amendment of the prayer in a writ petition upon the request of the petitioner. (Para 1 )
(1) LEARNED Senior Counsel for the petitioner produced before us a draft amendment of the prayer in the writ petition. At his request, the draft amendment is allowed. The writ petition is permitted to be amended accordingly.
(2) AS the majority judgment of a five-Judge Bench in P. V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) is brought in challenge in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and as learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to another Constitution Bench judgment in Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India on the question of maintainability of such a petition and as he further submitted that he only wants a declaration regarding the correctness of the constitutional position and also prays that such a declaration, if any, may be given only prospective effect, we deem it fit to direct that this matter be placed before a Bench of five learned Judges for consideration. The office is directed to obtain appropriate orders of the Honble the Chief Justice of India in this connection.
