9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the petitioner's detention and the competency of the Judicial Commissioner's Court. 2. Interpretation of Article 145(3) of the Constitution concerning the jurisdiction and procedural requirements of the Supreme Court. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Petitioner's Detention and Competency of the Judicial Commissioner's Court: The petitioner filed for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming he was deprived of his liberty contrary to the procedure established by law. The petitioner was initially acquitted by the Special Judge, but the Judicial Commissioner of Vindhya Pradesh reversed this acquittal, convicting and sentencing him. The petitioner contended that the Judicial Commissioner was not the proper forum for the appeal and that his judgment was void. However, this point was previously addressed and rejected by the Constitution Bench, and the petitioner's counsel did not press this issue further. 2. Interpretation of Article 145(3) of the Constitution: The primary issue revolved around the interpretation of Article 145(3), which mandates that a minimum of five judges must sit for cases involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that once a case is identified as involving such a substantial question, it must be heard entirely by a Constitution Bench of at least five judges. He contended that the Division Bench's judgment was illegal and void, as it did not comply with this requirement, thus violating his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The majority judgment rejected this argument, stating that the Constitution Bench could decide the constitutional questions and leave the remaining issues to be decided by a Division Bench. They emphasized that the Constitution does not preclude the splitting of cases into different stages for hearing and decision. The Court noted that procedural statutes and constitutional provisions, such as Article 228, allow for such a division of labor among judges. The majority held that once the constitutional questions were resolved by the Constitution Bench, the remaining issues could be appropriately handled by a Division Bench, thus saving judicial time without violating constitutional principles. In contrast, the dissenting opinion argued that Article 145(3) requires the entire case to be heard by a Constitution Bench if it involves substantial constitutional questions. The dissent emphasized that the Constitution explicitly distinguishes between a "case" and a "question" of constitutional law, allowing only questions to be referred to a Constitution Bench under the proviso to Article 145(3). The dissenting judge contended that the Constitution Bench should have heard the entire case to its conclusion, as there was no procedural mechanism for transferring parts of a case to a Division Bench once the Constitution Bench had taken it up. Conclusion: The majority judgment concluded that the respondents had made a good and valid return to the rule nisi, and the petition was dismissed. The dissenting opinion, however, would have allowed the petition, declaring the Division Bench's judgment invalid and requiring the appeal to be heard by a Constitution Bench. The final order, in accordance with the majority view, dismissed the petition.
|
