The Supreme Court ruled that decisions made by Constitution Benches are mandatory for smaller benches to follow. This ensures consistency in judicial rulings. Smaller benches cannot overrule or disregard these decisions. This principle upholds the hierarchy within the judicial system.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a judgment rendered by a Constitution bench carries a “binding” effect on benches of lower strength, as it recalls a verdict issued in April 2022. In its order dated April 7, 2022, the highest court ruled that a panchayat cannot assert ownership over land acquired from the rightful owners within the permissible ceiling limits under the land law in Haryana.
The Supreme Court clarified that panchayats authorized to administer and oversee such land but cannot stake a claim of ownership.
Read Also: Supreme Court’s Caseload Crisis: 54 Constitution Bench Cases Await Resolution
It Remarked,
“It’s important to highlight that once land is acquired from proprietors through proportional deductions from their permissible ceiling limits, the authority and control solely belong to the panchayat. However, this transfer of authority is permanent, and the land will not revert back to the proprietors for redistribution. This is because the land has been designated for both present and future communal needs.”
This statement made in reference to a ruling by the Supreme Court on a series of appeals challenging a full bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court regarding the legality of sub-section 6 of Section 2(g) of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
In a recent ruling, a bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta emphasized that if a high court decision based on the legal principles established by a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in 1966, it is essential for the reviewing court to provide a clear explanation of why the high court’s reliance on the 1966 verdict, erroneous.
The bench stated that the least expected from the court in the judgment being evaluated a proper elucidation of the reasons for disagreeing with the high court’s interpretation of the 1966 ruling.
The bench stated,
“It’s unnecessary to enact a law stipulating that a Constitution bench’s judgment holds sway over benches of lesser strength. The Bhagat Ram case (1966 verdict) was decided by a bench of five judges, and it was imperative for this court, with a bench strength of two judges, to adhere to the legal principles established by the Constitution bench, particularly as articulated in paragraph 5 of the Bhagat Ram case,” .
The highest court issued its ruling on a request for a reassessment of the April 2022 decision. The court emphasized that ‘ignoring’ the legal principles established by the Constitution bench and adopting an entirely contradictory stance would constitute a significant mistake evident in the order itself.
It said,
“Ignoring the judgement of the Constitution bench, in our view, would undermine its soundness. The review could have been allowed on this short ground alone,”
The bench remarked,
“Disregarding the ruling of the Constitution bench would, in our assessment, weaken its validity. Merely on this basis, the review could have been permitted,”
In granting the review petition, the bench stated,
“The decision and decree of this court rendered on April 7, 2022… are annulled, and the appeal is reinstated.”
The bench instructed that the appeal should be scheduled for hearing on August 7.
Read Also: Supreme Court refers Electoral Bonds case to Constitution Bench
The Supreme Court noted that the criteria for permitting a review well established, allowing it only in cases where a clear mistake or evident error within the record, or if sufficient grounds presented.
The court observed,
“Reviewing a judgment is only permissible if there exists a significant error, readily apparent within the order, that compromises its integrity or leads to an injustice. We acknowledge that such an error must be evident from the face of the record and not require extensive searching or investigation,” .
The reaffirmation by the Supreme Court serves as a reminder of the structured hierarchy within the judiciary and the importance of the Constitution Bench in the legal framework of India. It highlights the apex court‘s role in ensuring that the interpretation of the constitution and the application of constitutional principles remain consistent and are uniformly applied across different judicial platforms within the country.