Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Scope of Matters Referred - Article 145(3) empowers the Supreme Court to refer questions involving substantial questions of law relating to the interpretation of the Constitution or any other constitutional provision to a Bench of five Judges for an authoritative decision. This includes cases involving constitutional interpretation or references under Article 143. ["Rejanish K. V. VS K. Deepa - Supreme Court"], ["Govt. of NCT of Delhi VS Union of India - Supreme Court"]
Nature of Referred Matters - The matters referred under this article generally involve significant constitutional questions, such as the interpretation of specific articles (e.g., Articles 239AA, 145, 233(2)), or issues requiring an authoritative constitutional ruling. The scope extends to cases where constitutional law or fundamental rights are involved. ["Rejanish K. V. VS K. Deepa - Supreme Court"], ["Govt. of NCT of Delhi VS Union of India - Supreme Court"], ["U. P. State Law Officers Ministerial Staff Association High Court, Allahabad VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]
Legal Framework and Rules - The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, specify that cases involving substantial questions of constitutional law are to be heard by a five-judge Bench as per Article 145(3). The power under this article is exercised to ensure authoritative pronouncements on constitutional issues. ["Rejanish K. V. VS K. Deepa - Supreme Court"]
Limitations and Judicial Practice - The Court's power under Article 145(3) is subject to Parliament's laws, and it cannot be used to continue or override legislations like the Advocates Act or to alter judicial procedures. It is primarily for constitutional clarification. ["Rejanish K. V. VS K. Deepa - Supreme Court"], ["Nandini Sharma VS Registrar Supreme Court of India - Supreme Court"], ["NANDINI SHARMA vs REGISTRAR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Supreme Court"]
Examples of Matters Referred - Matters such as the scope of Articles 239AA, 145, and 233(2), and issues like reservation policies, jurisdictional questions, and constitutional amendments have been referred under this provision. ["Govt. of NCT of Delhi VS Union of India - Supreme Court"], ["Ameena Afroj D/O Shaik Altaf VS State Of Karnataka Rep. By Udder Secretary Dept. Of Primary And Secondary Education - Karnataka"]
Article 145(3) of the Indian Constitution is a vital constitutional provision that allows the Supreme Court to refer substantial questions of constitutional law to a five-judge Bench for an authoritative ruling. It ensures the uniform interpretation of the Constitution on key legal issues and helps settle constitutional disputes that have wide-ranging implications. However, its exercise is limited by statutory laws and procedural rules, emphasizing its role in constitutional clarification rather than judicial activism.
References:- ["Rejanish K. V. VS K. Deepa - Supreme Court"]- ["Govt. of NCT of Delhi VS Union of India - Supreme Court"]- ["U. P. State Law Officers Ministerial Staff Association High Court, Allahabad VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["Ameena Afroj D/O Shaik Altaf VS State Of Karnataka Rep. By Udder Secretary Dept. Of Primary And Secondary Education - Karnataka"]- ["NANDINI SHARMA vs REGISTRAR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Supreme Court"]- ["Nandini Sharma VS Registrar Supreme Court of India - Supreme Court"]
In the dynamic landscape of Indian jurisprudence, the Supreme Court's role in interpreting the Constitution is pivotal. Article 141 of the Constitution declares that the law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within India, underscoring the weight of its decisions. But what happens when a case raises a substantial question of law regarding constitutional interpretation? This is where Article 145(3) comes into play, mandating that such matters be heard by a Constitution Bench of at least five judges. If you're searching for the latest decision on Art 141 of the Constitution of India, understanding Article 145(3) is crucial, as it determines how binding precedents on constitutional issues are formed. This post breaks down referable matters, drawing from key judgments and guidelines. Note: This is general information, not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
Article 145(3) empowers the Supreme Court to regulate its practice and procedure, specifically requiring a minimum of five judges for cases involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution or references under Article 143. The provision states: The minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution... shall be five.GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS UNION OF INDIA - 2019 Supreme(SC) 164
This ensures that profound constitutional issues receive thorough scrutiny, producing precedents binding under Article 141. Recent interpretations emphasize that referrals are not routine but reserved for matters with broad implications. For instance, in disputes over executive powers in Union Territories, larger benches have clarified jurisdictional boundaries. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS UNION OF INDIA - 2019 Supreme(SC) 164
Not every constitutional query warrants a Constitution Bench. Courts assess if the question is substantial, meaning it involves core interpretation with potential wide-reaching effects. Here are the primary categories:
Substantial Questions of Law: Cases where constitutional interpretation is central to resolution. This includes novel or pivotal issues. State of Karnataka VS State of A. P. - Supreme Court (1998)State of Karnataka VS State of A. P. - Supreme Court (1998)
Challenges to Constitutional Validity: Disputes questioning statutes or rules against fundamental rights (e.g., Articles 14, 19, 21). In a challenge to lottery regulations under Article 131, the Court upheld maintainability for constitutional disputes. PTC India VS Central Electricity Regulatory Commission - Supreme Court (2010)SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA - Supreme Court (2015)State of Meghalaya VS Union of India - 2023 Supreme(SC) 507
Interpretation of Key Provisions: Detailed analysis of articles like 14 (equality), 19 (freedoms), or 21 (life and liberty). Reservations for women in public employment were scrutinized under Articles 15 and 16, clarifying limits. State Of Punjab VS Devans Modern Brewaries LTD. - Supreme Court (2003)Kantaru Rajeevaru VS Indian Young Lawyers Association Thr. Its General Secretary - Supreme Court (2019)Abhay Kumar Kispotta, S/o. Shri J. S. Kispotta VS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary Department of Medical Education - 2023 Supreme(Chh) 113
Public Interest Impact: Matters affecting society, such as fundamental rights or PILs. In NCTD governance, a Constitution Bench delineated LG and Council of Ministers' powers: Executive power of GNCTD extends to all subject matters contained in List II (except Entry 1, 2 and 18) as well as List III.Swapnil Tripathi VS Supreme Court of India - Supreme Court (2018)GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS UNION OF INDIA - 2019 Supreme(SC) 164
Conflicting Judgments: To resolve inconsistencies across benches. Referral is needed if prior decisions clash on constitutional points. Kantaru Rajeevaru VS Indian Young Lawyers Association - Supreme Court (2020)USHA BHARTI VS STATE OF U. P. - 2014 3 Supreme 674
These criteria guide whether a case under Order VII Rule 2 of Supreme Court Rules merits escalation. USHA BHARTI VS STATE OF U. P. - 2014 3 Supreme 674
Recent decisions highlight Article 145(3)'s application. In the Government of NCTD v. Union of India (2018), a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) addressed Delhi's administration: In all those matters which do not fall within discretionary jurisdiction of LG, LG is bound to act on aid and advice of Council of Ministers. This resolved federal tensions, becoming binding under Article 141. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS UNION OF INDIA - 2019 Supreme(SC) 164
Another example involves service matters and tribunals. Courts have ruled that bypassing tribunals for High Court writs under Article 226 is exceptional: Administrative tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction over service matters.All India Nic S&T Officers Association vs Union of India
In panchayat governance, Section 28 of U.P. Kshettra Panchayat Act was upheld against constitutional challenges, affirming states' flexibility under Part IX. USHA BHARTI VS STATE OF U. P. - 2014 3 Supreme 674
Even in non-Indian contexts like Malaysia, parallels exist, with Article 145(3) equivalents protecting prosecutorial discretion, requiring compelling prima facie evidence for review. BAR MALAYSIA vs PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA & ANOR
Lawyers' strikes and court disruptions have also invoked judicial independence, indirectly tying to constitutional benches for broader principles. Women Lawyers Association rep. By its Secretary VS State of Tamil Nadu - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 4524
Legal practitioners should evaluate:- Nature of the Question: Is it substantial and interpretive?State of Karnataka VS State of A. P. - Supreme Court (1998)- Precedents: Cite conflicts or gaps. Kantaru Rajeevaru VS Indian Young Lawyers Association - Supreme Court (2020)- Public Stakes: Broader societal impact strengthens the case. Swapnil Tripathi VS Supreme Court of India - Supreme Court (2018)
Prepare robust arguments with precedents. In NANDINI SHARMA vs REGISTRAR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Supreme Court_SC_25218_2022, the Court noted: The power of the Supreme Court under Article 145... is subject to the provisions of any law made by the Parliament.NANDINI SHARMA vs REGISTRAR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Referrals aren't automatic. In cases like women's reservations in Chhattisgarh services, courts struck down gender-specific rules as violative of Article 14/16, without needing larger benches initially. Abhay Kumar Kispotta, S/o. Shri J. S. Kispotta VS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary Department of Medical Education - 2023 Supreme(Chh) 113
Police actions in court premises, as in advocate boycott cases, emphasize judicial autonomy but rarely trigger 145(3) unless constitutional interpretation is key. Women Lawyers Association rep. By its Secretary VS State of Tamil Nadu - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 4524
Article 145(3) safeguards constitutional integrity by channeling substantial questions to Constitution Benches, yielding Article 141-binding precedents. From NCTD powers to validity challenges, these benches resolve complexities shaping India's legal framework.
Key Takeaways:- Assess for substantial constitutional questions before requesting referral.- Substantiate with precedents and public interest angles.- Stay updated on decisions like NCTD case for guidance. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS UNION OF INDIA - 2019 Supreme(SC) 164
For tailored advice, engage legal experts. References: State of Karnataka VS State of A. P. - Supreme Court (1998)State of Karnataka VS State of A. P. - Supreme Court (1998)PTC India VS Central Electricity Regulatory Commission - Supreme Court (2010)SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA - Supreme Court (2015)State Of Punjab VS Devans Modern Brewaries LTD. - Supreme Court (2003)Kantaru Rajeevaru VS Indian Young Lawyers Association Thr. Its General Secretary - Supreme Court (2019)Kantaru Rajeevaru VS Indian Young Lawyers Association - Supreme Court (2020)Swapnil Tripathi VS Supreme Court of India - Supreme Court (2018)State of Meghalaya VS Union of India - 2023 Supreme(SC) 507GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS UNION OF INDIA - 2019 Supreme(SC) 164USHA BHARTI VS STATE OF U. P. - 2014 3 Supreme 674
This analysis draws from established sources; jurisprudence evolves.
#Article145 #ConstitutionBench #SupremeCourtIndia
At this juncture, it will be apposite to refer to Article 145(3) of the Constitution which reads thus: “145. ... It is submitted that in view of the issue involving interpretation of Article 233(2) and the language used in Article 145(3) of the Constitution, the matter ought to have been referred to....
These Rules were framed by this Court in exercise of power under Article 145 of the Constitution. ... Union of India and Ors., (1977) 3 SCC 592 decided by a 7- Judge Bench of this Court, wherein it was observed that a State’s right to seek enforcement of a legal right arising under the Constitution cannot be thrown out in limine as being outside the scope and ambit of Article#H....
Since Articles 15(1) and 15(3) go together, the protection of Article 15(3) would be applicable to employment under the State falling under Articles 16(1) and (2) of the Constitution. In view of the above-referred judgment of this Court in Govt of A.P. v. P.B. ... The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court clarifies that reservation for women in public employment cannot be under Article 15....
to as "the accused"); (b) a declaration that the decision to apply for DNAA is null and void and/or made in excess of the jurisdiction and/or powers granted to the Attorney General under art 145(3) of the Federal Constitution ("Article 145(3)") and s 254(1) of the a href="./.. ... Judicial Review Over Decisions Made Under Article 145 [43] What I have....
323-A or by sub-clause (d) of clause (3) of Article 323-B of the Constitution, to totally exclude the jurisdiction of `all courts', except that of the Supreme Court under Article 136, in respect of disputes and complaints referred to in clause (1) of Article 323-A or with regard to all or any of the ... Article 226 of the Constitution. ... `Service #HL....
Bench, as envisaged under Article 145(3) of the Constitution. ... During the course of the hearing, Union of India has moved an application seeking reference of the present dispute to a Constitution Bench keeping in view Article 145(3) of the Constitution, on the premise that the erstwhile Constitution#HL_E....
or under the control of the Government of India or of 1[any corporation or society owned or controlled by the Government in pursuance of article 323A of the Constitution]and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto." ... The question referred to above has arisen as the decision of the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Raichur is under challenge in this writ petition under Arti....
145 of the Constitution. ... It is contended that the power granted under Article 145 of the Constitution of India is to supplement and not supplant the spirit of the Constitution and/or the Advocates Act, 1961. ... The power of the Supreme Court under Article 145 of the Constitution is subject to the provisions of any law made by the Parliament, hence....
Union of India , (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145], the Constitution Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the scope, content and meaning of Article 14. ... With regard to due process clause in the American Constitution and Article 14 of our Constitution, this Court referred to Anwar Ali Sarkar [ State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar , (1952....
145 of the Constitution. ... Article 145 reads as under:- 145. ... Union of India (2003), 2 SCC 45. 3. ... 3. ... The power of the Supreme Court under Article 145 of the Constitution is subject to the provisions of any law made by the Parliament, hence Supreme Court....
The minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any reference under Article 143 shall be five: Provided that, where the Court hearing an appeal under any of the provisions of this chapter other than Article 132 consists of less than five Judges and in the course of the hearing of the appeal the Court is satisfied that the appeal involves a substan....
Constitution of India – Article 145(3) r/w Order VII Rule 2, Supreme Court Rules, 1966 – Reference to Constitution Bench – Needed if substantial; question of law as envisaged u/Art 145(3) is raised – Constitution of India – Article 145(3) r/w Order VII Rule 2, Supreme Court Rules, 1966 – Reference to Constitution Bench – Needed if substantial; question of law as envisaged u/Art 145(3) is raised – Constitution of India – Article 145(3) r/w Order VII....
Section 49 merely empowers the Bar Council to frame rules laying down conditions subject to which an Advocate shall have a right to practise i.e. do all the other acts set out above. In conclusion, it is held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. However, Article 145 of the Constitution of India empowe
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
