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 – 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 essence of the judgment, and the same must be understood in the context of the relevant facts of the case. [Para 25][1131-F-G]
1.3 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. The enactment was passed during the interregnum period, before the formulation of the Constitution of State of Jammu and Kashmir, but after coming into force of the Constitution of India. The observations made by the Constitution Bench in this case, regarding the importance given to the decision of the Constituent Assembly of the State of Jammu and Kashmir needs to be read in the light of these facts. 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. The rationale for the same is clear, as the task of the Constituent Assembly was to further clarify the scope and ambit of the constitutional relationship between the Union of India and the State of Jammu and Kashmir, on which the State Government as defined under Article 370 might have already taken some decisions, before the convening of the Constituent Assembly, which the Constituent Assembly in its wisdom, might ultimately not agree with. Hence, the Court in the case of Prem Nath Kaul indicated that the Constituent Assembly’s decision under Article 370(2) was final. This finality has to be read as being limited to those decisions taken by the State Government under Article 370 prior to the convening of the Constituent Assembly of the State, in line with the language of Article 370(2). The Constitution Bench in the Prem Nath Kaul case did not discuss the continuation or cessation of the operation of Article 370 of the Constitution after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly of the State. This was not an issue in question before the Court, unlike in the Sampat Prakash case where the contention was specifically made before, and refuted by, the Court. This Court sees no reason to read into the Prem Nath Kaul case an interpretation which results in it being in conflict with the subsequent judgments of this Court, particularly when an ordinary reading of the judgment does not result in such an interpretation. Thus, 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. [Paras 42-45][1141-G-H; 1142-A-H; 1143-A]
1.4 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, 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. No reason is seen to refer these petitions to a larger Bench on the questions considered. [Paras 46, 47][1143-B-D]
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602 : [1988]
1 Suppl. SCR 1 – followed.
Chandra Prakash v. State of U.P. (2002) 4 SCC 234 : [2002] 2 SCR 913 ; National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100 ; Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi (1996) 6 SCC 44 : [1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 32 ; Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 16 SCC 623 : [2014] 4 SCR 486 ; Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh (1990) 3 SCC 682 : [1990] 3 SCR
111 – relied on.
Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1970 SC 1118 : [1970] SCR 365 – held not per
incuriam.
Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1959 SC 749 : [1959] Suppl. SCR 270 ; Mohd.
Maqbool Damnoo v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
(1972) 1 SCC 536 : [1972] 2 SCR 1014 ; State Bank of India v. Santosh Gupta (2017) 2 SCC 538 : [2016] 9 SCR 985 – referred to.
Street Tramways v. London County Council [1898] A.C.
375 ; Radcliffe v. Ribbel Motor Service Ltd. [1939] A.C.
215 ; Ex Parte Brisbane Tramways Co. Ltd. (No. 1) [1914] 18 C.L.R 54 ; Quinn v. Leathem 1901 AC 495 (HL) ; Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. 1944 KB
718 (CA) – referred to.
Congressional Record- Senate, Vol.156, Pt.7, 10018 (June 7, 2010) ; Salmond on Jurisprudence (P.J. Fitzgerald ed., 12th Edn. 1966), p.147 ; Halsbury’s Laws of England 3 rd edn., Vol.22, para 1687, pp.799800 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.