a The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has unanimously held that the decision of the larger Bench shall prevail over the decision of the smaller Bench, irrespective of the number of judges in the larger Bench.
It is well known in law that the decision of a High Court will always be binding on the lower court and the decision of a larger Bench will always apply to a smaller Bench of the same Court. This principle of law seeks to ensure that there is consistency and consistency in court decisions. This theory stems from the belief that a bench with greater strength is more likely to arrive at the right decision.
Understanding Bench Strength
Most cases before the Supreme Court are heard and decided by benches of two judges (division benches) or three (full benches). It is an established position that a Bench of equal power cannot annul or reconsider the decision of the Coordinating Bench; This, at best, can cast doubt on its correctness. Whenever there is any doubt or conflict between the decisions of co-equal benches, it is referred to the Chief Justice of India and this is where larger benches are constituted. The larger benches examine the question or correctness of the decision and the majority opinion expressed by them becomes the decision, which is binding on the lower benches.
One discrepancy here is that the majority decision is treated as the decision of the entire bench, including the dissenting judge, who examined the question. This is where the problem originates. If the correctness of a law laid down unanimously by a five-judge bench is in doubt, can it be overruled by a four-judge bench of a seven-judge? Can it be said that four judges of the larger bench reached the right decision and not the five judges of the smaller bench?
The Supreme Court, while considering the same question, said that if the number of judges is not the bench strength but the number of judges, then every decision of the larger bench can be doubted and dismissed on the ground of plurality of opinion, which eliminates the certainty. and stability of decisions. The observation holds some logic, as even a study with a large sample space (large bench) is assumed to reflect true results over a study with a small sample space. This is the root cause of the rule of precedents.
However, a blanket adherence to the principle of proposition as propounded by the Supreme Court can have dire consequences, as the correctness of a decision will become a game of numbers rather than reasons. The Supreme Court justified the binding nature of the approach of the larger bench by saying that the idea had come after deliberation by more judges. But just because a decision has been considered by more judges does not mean that it is correct and certainly will not be considered correct. In fact, if a larger bench reaches the decision with a smaller majority (e.g., 4:3 in a seven-judge bench), its accuracy would be more doubtful of the presumption that the bench consisted of different judges, the result perhaps. Would have been different After all, it is natural that the decision of a large majority is considered correct over a decision considered by a large number of considerations.
Such a discrepancy is usually avoided in the US and South Africa due to the fact that reconsideration of any precedent is a matter that is discussed by the full sitting power of the court opposing the partition. While both the UK and Australia follow a system similar to that of India, the whole act of ‘rethinking a precedent’ in these countries is seen as a delicate and serious judicial responsibility. In order to pacify the litigation and in the limited opportunity where a judgment is reopened, instances are re-adjudicated more than once, unlike in India, the only requirement being that by a Bench of all ‘Available Judges’ will be examined. ,
recommendations
If such conflicts are to be avoided by the Supreme Court of India, some changes are required in terms of constitution of larger benches. It is recommended that the term ‘larger bench’ should not be construed in the strict sense of simply being more powerful than the lower bench. Instead, there should be an effort to have a quorum with a greater majority than the break-even or lower bench. Thus, if a five-judge unanimous decision is referred to a larger bench, it must be considered by a nine-judge bench instead of seven, so that any case is decided by a majority of at least five judges. Can go After all, the accuracy of a judicial decision has far more to do with the number of judges considering a complex question of law. Otherwise, a smaller number of judges holding a majority opinion may dismiss a higher number of judges having a majority opinion on the basis of the fact that a smaller number of judges with a majority opinion were part of a larger bench. By allowing this possibility, the Supreme Court has opened up the possibility of criticism of its decisions on the grounds of having a ‘narrower majority’ as compared to its previous unanimous decisions.