1. Reliance on precedent — contention that precedent is not in accord with larger bench decision. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M. LODHA, CJI., KURIAN JOSEPH, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
DAVINDER SINGH & ORS. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2317 OF 2011
Decided On : 20-08-2014
1. Reliance on precedent — contention that precedent is not in accord with larger bench decision. (Para 1 , 2 )
2. Court held that the Constitution Bench decision needs revisiting in light of a nine-judge bench decision and Article 338. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Matter referred to larger Bench for consideration of constitutional issues; placed before Chief Justice. (Para 5 , 6 )
When a Constitution Bench decision is not in accord with a larger bench decision and involves interplay of constitutional provisions, it requires revisiting. (Para 3 , 4 )
ORDER
Learned counsel for the respondent(s) heavily relies upon the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in E.V. Chinnaiah Vs. State of A.P. and others, (2005) 1 SCC 394.
2. On the other hand, learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellants, submits that E.V. Chinnaiah1 has no application on the controversy in hand. Moreover, he submits that E.V. Chinnaiah1 is not in accord with the 9-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Indra Sawhney and others Vs. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217.
3. Having heard learned Additional Solicitor General and learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that E.V. Chinnaiah1 needs to be revisited in light of Article 338 of the Reason: Constitution of India and, inter alia, exposition of law in Indra Sawhney, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217.
4. Moreover, the matter also involves interpretation and interplay between Article 16(1), Article 16(4), Article 338 and Article 341 of the Constitution of India as well.
5. In this view of the matter, we refer the matter for consideration of the above aspects by the larger Bench.
6. Let the matter be placed before the Chief Justice on administrative side for appropriate order.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top