9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 1324 - SC - Indian LawsReference of matter to Larger Bench - contrary opinions by two different Constitution Benches on the interpretation of Article 370 of the Constitution - Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir - alleged contradictory views of this Court in PREM NATH KAUL VERSUS THE STATE OF JAMMU KASHMIR 1959 (3) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT and SAMPAT PRAKASH VERSUS STATE OF JAMMU KAS HMIR 1969 (2) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT case? - Doctrine of precedents. HELD THAT - The first case which needs to be looked at is the Prem Nath Kaul case which dealt with the validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Big Landed Estate (Abolition) Act, 2007. The main contention on which the Act was impugned was that the Yuvaraj did not have the constitutional authority to promulgate the said Act. One of the arguments canvassed by the Petitioner in that case related to the effect of Article 370 of the Constitution of India on the powers of the Yuvaraj. The Constitution Bench, in deciding that it would be unreasonable to hold that Article 370 could have affected, or was intended to affect, the plenary powers of the Maharaja, made certain observations relating to Article 370 of the Constitution, which the counsel before us arguing for a reference have relied upon. The observations of the Constitution Bench in the Prem Nath Kaul case regarding Article 370 therefore merit reproduction in their entirety - The learned senior Counsel submit that there exists a conflict with the dicta of another Constitution Bench of this Court in the Sampat Prakash case. In the Sampat Prakash case, this Court was seized of a matter pertaining to the detention of the Petitioner in that case under the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act 13 of 1964. The main point canvassed before the Constitution Bench was whether the continuation of Article 35(c) of the Constitution (as applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir), which gave protection to any law relating to preventive detention in Jammu and Kashmir, through successive Constitution Orders passed in exercise of the powers of the President Under Article 370 of the Constitution, in 1959 and 1964, was valid. The Court held that the Constitution Orders were validly passed in exercise of the power Under Article 370 of the Constitution, which continued beyond the date of dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. First, it is worth highlighting that judgments cannot be interpreted in a vacuum, separate from their facts and context. Observations made in a judgment cannot be selectively picked in order to give them a particular meaning. The Court in the Prem Nath Kaul case had to determine the legislative competence of the Yuvaraj, in passing a particular enactment - Second, the framework of Article 370(2) of the Indian Constitution was such that any decision taken by the State Government, which was not an elected body but the Maharaja of the State acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers which was in office by virtue of the Maharaja's proclamation dated March 5, 1948, prior to the sitting of the Constituent Assembly of the State, would have to be placed before the Constituent Assembly, for its decision as provided Under Article 370(2) of the Constitution. This Court is of the opinion that there is no conflict between the judgments in the Prem Nath Kaul case and the Sampat Prakash case. The plea of the counsel to refer the present matter to a larger Bench on this ground is therefore rejected. Doctrine of precedents - HELD THAT - The Rule of per incuriam being an exception to the doctrine of precedents is only applicable to the ratio of the judgment. The same having an impact on the stability of the legal precedents must be applied sparingly, when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the opinions of two co-ordinate Benches. However, as indicated above there are no contrary observations made in the Sampat Prakash case to that of Prem Nath Kaul, accordingly, the case of Sampat Prakash is not per incuriam. There are no reason to refer these petitions to a larger Bench on the questions considered.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the matter should be referred to a larger Bench due to alleged contradictory views of the Supreme Court in Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir. 2. Whether the judgment in Sampat Prakash is per incuriam for not considering the decision in Prem Nath Kaul. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Reference to a Larger Bench Contentions: - Petitioners' Argument: The petitioners argued that the matter should be referred to a larger Bench due to conflicting interpretations of Article 370 by two different Constitution Benches. They cited Prem Nath Kaul, which considered Article 370 temporary, and Sampat Prakash, which recognized it as a permanent provision. - Respondent's Argument: The Attorney General and Solicitor General contended that there was no inconsistency between the judgments. They argued that Prem Nath Kaul did not decide on the nature of Article 370, while Sampat Prakash dealt with its continuance post-dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. Court's Analysis: - Doctrine of Precedent: The Court emphasized the importance of the doctrine of precedent and the need for consistency in judicial decisions. It noted that a decision by a coordinate Bench binds subsequent Benches of equal or lesser strength. - Interpretation of Judgments: The Court stated that judgments must be read in their context. It found that the observations in Prem Nath Kaul were specific to the legislative competence of the Yuvaraj and did not address the continuation of Article 370 after the Constituent Assembly's dissolution. - Conclusion: The Court concluded that there was no conflict between Prem Nath Kaul and Sampat Prakash. It held that the plea to refer the matter to a larger Bench was unfounded and rejected it. Issue 2: Per Incuriam Contentions: - Petitioners' Argument: The petitioners argued that Sampat Prakash was per incuriam as it did not consider the earlier decision in Prem Nath Kaul. - Respondent's Argument: The respondents contended that the rule of per incuriam is limited and contextual. They argued that there were no specific contrary observations in Sampat Prakash that conflicted with Prem Nath Kaul. Court's Analysis: - Rule of Per Incuriam: The Court explained that per incuriam applies when a judgment is passed in ignorance of a relevant statute or binding authority. It emphasized that this rule should be applied sparingly. - Application to the Case: The Court found that there were no irreconcilable conflicts between the judgments. It noted that Prem Nath Kaul did not discuss the continuation of Article 370 post-dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, which was the main issue in Sampat Prakash. - Conclusion: The Court held that Sampat Prakash was not per incuriam and upheld its validity. Conclusion: The Supreme Court rejected the plea to refer the matter to a larger Bench, finding no conflict between the judgments in Prem Nath Kaul and Sampat Prakash. It also held that Sampat Prakash was not per incuriam. The petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Constitution Orders issued under Article 370 were not referred to a larger Bench.
|
