The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the prescribed procedure when judges are divided in opinion, including stating the points of difference and the decision by majority. It also emphasizes the need for the matter to be laid before a larger Bench in certain circumstances.

( 1 ) THE Proceedings before this court are by nomination of the Honble the Chief Justice upon a difference of opinion between two Honble Judges, who after having delivered their judgments desires the Honble the Chief Justice to place the matter before a third judge.

( 2 ) A situation like this occurred in this court more than 100 years ago to which this court will refer to later. but, at the present moment it would be best to take recourse to the charter of this court known as Rules of the Court, 1952, the successor to the Letters Patent which established the High Court. The situation has arisen as learned counsel arguing for the petitioner has cautioned the court that he has reservation that the reference which has been made may not be compatible with the High Court Rules and it may not be misunderstood later that the situation was not brought to the courts notice.

( 3 ) AT present, the court is not going into the merits of the matter. Suffice it to say that the Bench comprising of the Honble Girdhar Malviya, J. and the Honble K. K. Chaubey, J rendered a decision signed, sealed and delivered on the same day being 23/04/1991. The Honlble Presiding Judge allowed the petition and set at liberty the detenu. The other Honlble Judge dismissed the petition upholding the detention. The detention order was under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. After the judgment had been delivered, the judges continued to constitute the Bench and agreed to disagree by passing the following orders : "honble Girdhar Malviya, J. Honble K. K. Chaubey, J. In view of the difference of opinion between us let the papers of this case be laid before the Honble the Chief Justice to nominate the third judge for his decision. Sd. G. M. Sd. K. K. C. 24-4-1991".

( 4 ) THE matter was placed before the Honble the Chief Justice, the next day and the endorsement of the Honble the Chief Justice reads :- "list it before Honble Ravi S. Dhavan J. Sd. B. P. J. Reddy. Chief Justice. 25-4-1991. "

( 5 ) THIS court has now been put in a very delicate position as any decision which it may take will render one decision correct and the other incorrect certifying in effect that one Honble Judge was right and the other was wrong. This cannot happen. After the two Honble Judges aforesaid, delivered their independent decisions by separate judgments, and not even agreeing to state the points of , difference, there is now a conflict of decisions. The situation is not dissimilar to conflict of judgments between two courts of coordinate jurisdiction. In these circumstances how would such a conflict in judgments be resolved?

( 6 ) NOW comes the aspect on how to proceed in a matter when two judges are divided in opinion, so that a decision is rendered. Then, a situation when two judges have rendered their decisions and have not agreed with each other and without stating the points of difference seek the opinion of a third judge. In such a situation is the entire case to be heard de novo?

( 7 ) THE difference of opinion in the process of judicial making invitably will happen either (a) Before judgment or (b) after judgment. The two situation will need to be resolved separately as a matter of consistency and standardised procedure.

( 8 ) THUS, one aspect is clear that when a division of opinion occurs between Honble Judges and the decision is yet to be given, then that is the stage when the Honble Judges may formulate, their points of difference and lay them before the Chief Justice for being referred to one or more of the other judges so nominated. Then only those points will be decided by the Honble Judge or Judges so nominated. On the points referred, the decision would be by majority, between the judges who differed and the judge or judges to whom the matter was referred.

( 9 ) SUCH is not the situation in the present case as after the Honble Judges had rendered their decisions, delivered their judgments and parted