N. RAVI vs SPEAKER, LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, CHENNAI

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2004 Supreme(SC) 1549

Supreme Court Of India
(R.C. LAHOTI, CJI., B.N. AGRAWAL, H.K. SEMA, G.P. MATHUR AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.
N. RAVI AND OTHERS- Petitioners;
Versus
SPEAKER, LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, CHENNAI AND OTHERS - Respondents.
Writ Petitions (Crl.) Nos. 206-10 of 2003 with WP (C) No. 508 of 2003 and SLP (C) No. 11540 of 2004,
decided on December 8, 2004

ORDER

1.Service is not complete.

2.The hearing in this matter is separated.

3. List after service is complete.

WPs (Crl.) Nos. 206-10 of2003 and WP (C) No. 508 of 2003

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinhal is a Constitution Bench decision (five Judges). Certain observations made in Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, Re2 extensively read out by Mr Harish N. Salve, the learned Senior Counsel, run in conflict with the law laid down in Pandit M.S.M. Sharma easel; though in Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, Re2 a seven-Judge Bench (at p.453) expressed an opinion that they were in agreement with the majority decision in Pandit M.S.M. Sharma easel. Shri Salve further submitted that the issue has very wide ramifications and is likely to arise in future and needs to be settled authoritatively.

5. Let the matter be placed for consideration by a seven-Judge Bench.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document