1. Conflict between Constitution Bench decisions on the same legal issue referred to larger bench for authoritative settlement. (Para 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
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
When a conflict exists between decisions of benches of different strengths, specifically a five-judge bench and a seven-judge bench, on an issue with wide ramifications, the matter is referred to a larger bench for authoritative settlement.
Headnote:(A) Judicial Procedure - Conflict between decisions of different bench strengths - Referral to a larger bench - When a decision of a five-judge bench stands in conflict with observations made by a seven-judge bench, and the issue has wide ramifications, it needs to be settled authoritatively. (Paras 4 and 5)
Facts of the case:
Writ petitions were filed wherein it was brought to the notice of the court that a five-judge bench decision was in conflict with observations made in a special reference by a seven-judge bench. It was submitted that the legal issue involved has wide ramifications and is likely to arise in the future, necessitating an authoritative settlement.
Findings of Court:
The court noted the conflict between the two judicial authorities and the potential for the issue to recur.
Issues: Whether the conflict between a five-judge bench decision and a seven-judge bench's opinion should be resolved by a larger bench.
Ratio Decidendi: An issue involving a conflict between a five-judge bench decision and a seven-judge bench opinion, which also carries wide legal ramifications, should be placed for consideration by a seven-judge bench to ensure an authoritative settlement.
Result: Matter placed for consideration by a seven-judge bench.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Conflict between earlier law and later bench opinion despite expressed agreement. Issue needs authoritative resolution. (Para 4 )
3. Observations in seven-Judge Bench run in conflict with law laid down by five-Judge Constitution Bench. (Para 4 )
4. Matter placed for consideration by a seven-Judge Bench. (Para 5 )
5. What happens when a larger bench expresses agreement with an earlier decision but its observations conflict with that decision?
The conflicting observations require authoritative settlement by a larger bench to resolve the inconsistency and clarify the law. (Para 4 , 5 )
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.
