The constitution of ‘Constitution Bench’
Article 145(3) in The Constitution Of India 1949
(3) 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 substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the appeal, such Court shall refer the question for opinion to a Court constituted as required by this clause for the purpose of deciding any case involving such a question and shall on receipt of the opinion dispose of the appeal in conformity with such opinion.
Two Judges Bench is not competent to challenge a Constitution Bench judgment
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Mumbai Shramik Sangha And Ors on 25 April, 2001
BENCH: S.P. BHARUCHA & V.N. KHARE & N. SANTOSH HEGDE & Y.K. SABHARWAL & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT 2001 ( 3 ) SCR 208: The following Order of the Court was delivered : ORDER The order of reference to a Constitution Bench is dated 13th January, 1998. Two learned judges of this Court have doubted the correctness of the scope attributed to Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 in the Constitution Bench judgment in Gammon (India) Ltd. v. Union of India, [1974] 3 SCR 665. This is how the matter comes before us.
We are of the view that a decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court binds a bench of two learned judges of this Court and that judicial discipline A obliges them to follow it, regardless of their doubts about its correctness. At the most, they could have ordered that the matter be heard by a Bench of three learned judges.
Accordingly, this matter shall now be heard and decided by a Bench of two learned judges.
1950
1 Abdulla Ahmed Vs. Animendra Kissen Mitter.
Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj),Fazal Ali, Saiyid,Sastri, M. Patanjali,Mahajan, Mehr Chand,Das, Sudhi Ranjan 14/03/1950
2 Bhawanipore Banking Corpora-Tion, Ltd. Vs. Gouri Shankar Sharma
Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj),Fazal Ali, Saiyid,Sastri, M. Patanjali,Mahajan, Mehr Chand,Das, Sudhi Ranjan 14/03/1950
Fazal Ali, Saiyid,Sastri, M. Patanjali,Mahajan, Mehr Chand,Mukherjea, B.K.,Das, Sudhi Ranjan 05/05/1950
4 Commissioner Of Agriculturalincome-Tax, Bengal Vs. Sri Keshab Chandra Mandal
Fazal Ali, Saiyid,Sastri, M. Patanjali,Mahajan, Mehr Chand,Mukherjea, B.K.,Das, Sudhi Ranjan 09/05/1950
5 Dr. N.B. Khare Vs. The State Of Delhi
Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj),Fazal Ali, Saiyid,Sastri, M. Patanjali,Mahajan, Mehr Chand,Mukherjea, B.K. 26/05/1950
6 The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi Vs. Employees Of The Bharat Bank Ltd.,
Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj),Fazal Ali, Saiyid,Sastri, M. Patanjali,Mahajan, Mehr Chand,Mukherjea, B.K. 26/05/1950
7 Chintaman Rao Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradeshram
Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj),Mahajan, Mehr Chand,Mukherjea, B.K.,Das, Sudhi Ranjan,Aiyar, N. Chandrasekhara 08/11/1950
8 The State Of Tripura Vs. The Province Of East Bengalunion Of India–Intervener
Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj),Fazal Ali, Saiyid,Sastri, M. Patanjali,Mukherjea, B.K.,Aiyar, N. Chandrasekhara 04/12/1950
9 Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri Vs. The Union Of India And Others.
Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj),Fazal Ali, Saiyid,Sastri, M. Patanjali,Mukherjea, B.K.,Das, Sudhi Ranjan 04/12/1950
10 The State Of Tripura Vs. The Province Of East Bengalunion Of India–Intervener
Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj),Fazal Ali, Saiyid,Sastri, M. Patanjali,Mukherjea, B.K.,Aiyar, N. Chandrasekhara 20/12/1950