In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has recently addressed the contentious issue of one three-judge bench scrutinizing the verdict of another bench of the same strength. This move, which has been met with objections from the Centre, follows a precedent set by the Court’s earlier interpretation of land acquisition law.
The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, and Bela M Trivedi, dismissed the Centre’s concerns about setting a wrong precedent. The Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, had raised these concerns, arguing against the scrutiny of a three-judge bench’s verdict by another bench of the same strength. In response, the bench stated,
“We are here to look whether review is needed and whether it should be sent to a five-judge bench. A three-judge bench had earlier also differed with another three-judge bench and the matter was referred to a larger bench. It happened in the land acquisition case in which you also appeared.”
This discussion refers back to a 2018 order by a three-judge bench, which declared a 2014 judgment by another three-judge bench as per incuriam (without care for law or facts). The disagreement was over the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The 2014 bench, consisting of Justices R M Lodha, Madan B Lokur, and Kurian Joseph, had ruled that compensation for land acquisition, unless paid directly to the landowner, could not be considered effectively paid. This ruling was later challenged by a bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Adarsh Kumar Goel, and Mohan M Shantanagoudar in 2018, leading to the referral of the controversy to a five-judge bench.
In a related hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal raised concerns about the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Sibal argued,
“PMLA insofar as it allows for an officer of the Enforcement Directorate to summon any person to record his statement during the course of an investigation, require the said person to tell the truth in such statement and to sign the said statement, under the threat of penalty or arrest is violative of Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution.”
He further criticized the ED’s operations, stating,
“I use this expression intentionally. It can go anywhere it wants. And what it does is. It does not tell you whether you are being called as a witness or an accused.”
The Centre’s counsel countered these arguments, emphasizing the importance of the PMLA for the nation. During the proceedings, the bench queried Sibal on the nature of summons under the PMLA, to which Sibal responded that the summoned individual has the right to know the reason for their summons. He also referenced landmark cases like A D M Jabalpur and A K Gopalan to support his contention that judgments are set aside as new paradigms emerge regarding the liberty of the people.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta expressed reservations about the petitioners expanding the scope of the hearing through amendments to their petitions. He noted that the entire Act was now being challenged, rather than specific provisions. In response, Sibal requested the court to refer the matter to a five-judge bench for a more comprehensive determination of the legal questions involved.
This ongoing legal discourse highlights the dynamic nature of judicial review and the evolving interpretation of laws in India, particularly in relation to the powers of enforcement agencies and the protection of constitutional rights.
Also read- Supreme Court Questions Union Government’s Non-Appointment Of Sikh Lawyers As Judges (lawchakra.in)
