DR. SHAH FAESAL AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 1115 · Decided: 02-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, R. SUBHASH REDDY, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1115
DR. SHAH FAESAL AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1099 of 2019)
MARCH 02, 2020
[N. V. RAMANA, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,
R. SUBHASH REDDY, B. R. GAVAI AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art.370 – On August 5, 2019, two
Constitution Orders were issued by the President, in exercise of
power u/Art.370, which made the Constitution of India applicable
to the State of Jammu & Kashmir in its entirety, like other States in
India – Orders challenged – Contentions raised at the outset that
the present matter needs to be referred to larger Bench as there are
contrary opinions by two different Constitution Benches in Prem
Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported as [1959] Suppl.
SCR 270 and Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported
as [1970] SCR 365 on the interpretation of Art.370 and that Sampat
Prakash is per incuriam as it did not consider Prem Nath Kaul – Present
order confined to preliminary issue of reference – No issue
considered on merits – Held: Decision rendered by a coordinate
Bench is binding on the subsequent Benches of equal or lesser
strength – However, judgments cannot be interpreted in a vacuum,
separate from their facts, context – In Prem Nath Kaul, Court had to
determine the legislative competence of the Yuvaraj, in passing a
particular enactment passed during the interregnum period, before
the formulation of the Constitution of State of Jammu & Kashmir,
but after coming into force of the Constitution of India –
Observations made regarding the importance given to decision of
the Constituent Assembly of the State of Jammu & Kashmir needs to
be read in the light of these facts – It was indicated that the
Constituent Assembly’s decision u/Art.370(2) was final – This finality
has to be read as being limited to those decisions taken by the State
Govt. u/Art.370 prior to the convening of the Constituent Assembly
of the State, in line with the language of Art.370(2) – Prem Nath
Kaul did not discuss the continuation/cessation of operation of
Art.370 after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly of the State
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 1115
1115
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
– This issue was not in question before the Court, unlike in Sampat
Prakash case where the contention was specifically made and refuted
by the Court – Rule of per incuriam being an exception to the doctrine
of precedents is only applicable to the ratio of the judgment – There
are no contrary observations made in Sampat Prakash case to that
of Prem Nath Kaul – Sampat Prakash case is not per incuriam – No
conflict between Prem Nath Kaul and Sampat Prakash – No reason
to refer these petitions to a larger Bench on the questions considered
– Doctrine of Precedents and stare decisis.
Practice & Procedure – Doctrine of Precedents – Rule of per
incuriam, an exception – Applicability of – Held: Rule of per incuriam
has been developed as an exception to the doctrine of judicial
precedent – Literally, it means a judgment passed in ignorance of a
relevant statute or any other binding authority – Rule of per incuriam
is only applicable to the ratio of the judgment – Constitution of
India – Art.370.
Words & Expressions –‘‘ratio decidendi”; “obiter dictum” –
Meaning of – Discussed – Constitution of India – Art.370.
Disposing of the petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Doctrine of precedents and stare decisis are
the core values of legal system. They form the tools which further
the goal of certainty, stability and continuity in legal system.
Arguably, judges owe a duty to the concept of certainty of law,
therefore they often justify their holdings by relying upon the
established tenets of law. When a decision is rendered by this
Court, it acquires a reliance interest and the society organizes
itself based on the present legal order. When substantial judicial
time and resources are spent on references, the same should
not be made in a casual or cavalier manner. It is only when a
proposition is contradicted by a subsequent judgment by a Bench
of same strength, or it is shown that the proposition laid down
has become unworkable or contrary to a well-established principle,
that a reference will be made to a larger Bench. [Paras 18,
19][1129-B-D]
1.2 A judgment of this Court can be distinguished into two
parts: ratio decidendi and the obiter dictum. The ratio is the basic
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1117
essence of the judgment, and the same must be understood in
the context of the relevant f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.