LexCENTRAL BOARD OF DAWOODI BOHRA COMMUNITY AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A CENTRAL BOARD OF DA WOODI BOHRA COMMUNITY AND ANR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. DECEMBER 17, 2004 B [R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] c Precedent-Law laid down by a larger Bench of Supreme Court-Held, is binding on any subordinate Bench of lesser or equal strength. Practice and Procedure : Supreme Court of India-Constitution of larger Benches-Held, it will be open only for a Bench of co-equal strength to get reconsidered the view taken earlier by Bench of co-equal strength by way of reference to a larger D Bench-However, the Chief Justice can direct any matter to be placed before any particular Bench of any strength-Administration of Justice-Consti- tution of larger Benches in Supreme Court-Supreme Court of India- Constitution of larger Benches. In Sardar Svedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay a five- E Judges Bench of this Court ruled by a majority of 4 : 1 that the Bombay Prevention of Ex-communication Act, 1949 was ultra vires the Consti- tution as it violated Article 26(b) of the Constitution and was not saved by Article 25(2). The present petition has been filed seeking reconsid- eration an overruling of that decision and for issuing a writ of mandamus F directing the respondent-State to give effect to the provisions of the said Act. The matter came up for hearing before a two-Judges Bench of this Court which directed 'rule nisi' to be issued. Subsequently, a two- Judges Bench directed the matter to be listed before a seven-Judges G Bench of hearing. The seven-Judges Bench adjourned the hearing. Respondent No. 2 filed the present Interim Application seeking a direction that the matter be listed before a Division Bench of two Judges as was the normal practice of this Court. H Disposing of the application, the Court 1054 , . CENTRAL BD. OF DA WOOD! BOHRA COMMUNITY v. STATE 1055 HELD : 1. The law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered A by a Bench of larger strength, is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or coequal strength. (p. 13). [1062-H] 2. A Bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree or dissent from th~ view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt B all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose decisios1 has come up for consideration. It will be open only for a Bench of coequal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of coequal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted. (p. 13) [1063-A-B] c 3. The above said rules do not bind the discretion of the Chief D Justice in whom vests the power of framing the roster and who can direct any particular matter to be placed for hearing before any par- ticular Bench of any strength: In spite of the rules laid down hereinabove, if the matter has already come up for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum and that Bench itself feels that the view of the law taken by a E Bench of lesser quorum, which view is in doubt, needs correction or reconsideration then by way of exception (and not as a rule) and for reasons given by it, it may proceed to hear the case and examine the correctness of the previous decision in question dispensing with the need . of a specific reference of the order of Chief Justice constituting the Bench and such listing. (pp. 13-14) [1063-C-D-E] F Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, [1962] Supp. 2 SCR 496; Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Mumbai Sharmik Sangha, [2001] 4 SCC 448; Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik, [2002] 1SCC1; Chandra Prakash v. State of UP., [2002] 4 SCC G 234; Vishweshwaraiah Iron and Steel Ltd. v. Abdul Gani, [2002] 10 SCC 437; Arya Sama} Education Trust v. Director of Education, Delhi, [2004) 8 SCC 30; Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 2 SCC 754; Union of India v. Hansoli Devi, [2002] 7 SCC 273 and Sher Singh v. State of Punjab, [1983] 2 sec 344, referred to. H A B 1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. Jones v. Secretary of State for Social Services, (1972] AC 944b; Ross Smith v. Ross-Smith, [1963) AC 280; Indvka v. Indvka, [1969) AC 33; Steadm
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.