1. Writ petition under Article 32 challenging a majority judgment of a five-judge Bench. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 918
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Centre for Public Interest Litigation
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Decided on : May 1, 2000
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to allow the amendment of a writ petition and the consideration of constitutional position and prospective effect in invoking relevant judgments.
Headnote:
Amendment - Writ Petition - The court allowed the draft amendment of the prayer in the writ petition, permitting the writ petition to be amended accordingly. The matter was directed to be placed before a Bench of five learned Judges for consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's counsel produced a draft amendment of the prayer in the writ petition, which was allowed by the court. The petition challenged a majority judgment of a five-Judge Bench and invoked another Constitution Bench judgment on the question of maintainability of such a petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the matter to be placed before a Bench of five learned Judges for consideration, taking into account the petitioner's request for a declaration regarding the correctness of the constitutional position and prospective effect of such a declaration.
Issues: Amendment of Writ Petition, Maintainability of Petition, Declaration of Constitutional Position, Prospective Effect
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's request for amendment of the writ petition and the invocation of relevant Constitution Bench judgments on maintainability and prospective effect of a declaration regarding the constitutional position.
Final Decision: The court allowed the amendment of the writ petition and directed the matter to be placed before a Bench of five learned Judges for consideration.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Maintainability of a challenge to a Constitution Bench judgment and request for a declaration on the constitutional position with prospective effect. (Para 2 )
3. The court noted the challenge to a five-judge Bench judgment and the request for a declaration on the constitutional position. (Para 2 )
4. Challenges to a majority judgment of a five-judge Bench are to be considered by a Bench of five learned Judges. (Para 2 )
5. Prayer amendment allowed; matter referred to a five-judge Bench pending orders from the Chief Justice of India. (Para 1 , 2 )
6. What is the procedure for challenging a majority judgment of a five-judge Bench under Article 32?
Such matters may be placed before a Bench of five learned Judges for consideration, following appropriate orders from the Chief Justice of India. (Para 2 )
( 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.
