The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, holds a pivotal role in shaping the legal landscape of the country. Its interpretations of the law under Article 141 of the Constitution, which mandates that the “law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India,” create precedents to be followed by lower courts. However, an emerging issue within the Supreme Court itself is the inconsistency created by benches of equal strength overturning or contradicting each other’s decisions, leading to a troubling trend of “Bench vs Bench.”
### Understanding the Issue
At the heart of this issue is the concept of judicial discipline and consistency. A bench of the Supreme Court, composed of judges with equal constitutional authority, often deals with matters involving different interpretations of law. Ideally, once a decision is rendered, it becomes binding under Article 141, unless a larger bench re-examines and overrules it. However, there has been a recent trend where benches of equal strength, typically two or three judges, have started to question or overturn decisions of other benches without referring the matter to a larger bench.
This creates not only legal confusion but also affects the consistency and predictability of judicial rulings, key principles that uphold the rule of law.
### Legal Framework Governing Precedents
The doctrine of stare decisis is a fundamental principle that ensures the stability of law. Under this doctrine, decisions made by higher courts serve as binding precedents for lower courts. The hierarchy of courts is structured in such a way that smaller or equal-sized benches must adhere to decisions of larger benches.
However, when a bench feels that an earlier decision was flawed or inapplicable to the case at hand, the proper course is to refer the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration. This practice helps avoid conflicting judgments from co-equal benches, preserving the integrity and uniformity of the legal system.
### Recent Conflicts Between Benches
The issue of bench vs bench conflict has surfaced in several recent cases, sparking debates within the legal fraternity. One such instance occurred in the *Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal* case, where a three-judge bench disagreed with the interpretation of a land acquisition law made by an earlier three-judge bench in *Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki*. Instead of referring the matter to a larger bench, the latter bench proceeded to overrule the earlier decision, creating confusion in subsequent rulings.
Similarly, in cases concerning criminal law, constitutional interpretation, and corporate disputes, benches have often disagreed with prior rulings, leading to inconsistent application of legal principles. This inconsistency has particularly affected lower courts, which rely on clear precedents to make decisions in line with the Supreme Court’s interpretations.
### Implications for Judicial Discipline and Certainty
This growing trend of conflicting decisions from benches of equal strength raises concerns over judicial discipline. The practice of adhering to precedent ensures that law is applied uniformly, preventing arbitrary decisions. If this principle is not followed, it undermines the authority of the Supreme Court itself, as different benches begin to operate in silos, interpreting laws based on their individual perspectives.
Moreover, such conflicts erode the certainty of legal outcomes. Lawyers, judges, and litigants rely on past rulings to guide their strategies and decisions. Conflicting judgments from benches of equal strength make it difficult for lower courts to determine which ruling to follow, thereby diminishing public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to provide clear, consistent, and predictable legal guidance.
### Addressing the Problem: Need for Larger Bench References
One possible solution to address this issue is a more consistent use of larger bench references. When a bench encounters a conflicting interpretation of law from another co-equal bench, it should refrain from overturning the decision outright and instead refer the matter to a larger bench—typically composed of five or more judges—for reconsideration. This ensures that the matter is settled with greater judicial authority, and the decision becomes binding for all future cases.
The Supreme Court itself has laid down this procedure in several judgments. In *Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra* (2005), a Constitution Bench ruled that a smaller bench cannot overrule a decision by a larger bench, and if a bench feels that an earlier decision by a bench of the same or larger size is incorrect, it must refer the matter to a bench of higher strength.
### Revisiting the Court’s Role in Lawmaking
A deeper issue also lies in how the judiciary views its role in interpreting laws vis-à-vis the legislature. The judiciary often steps in to fill gaps left by legislative inaction or ambiguity. While judicial activism has led to progressive rulings in several areas—such as rights of marginalized communities and protection of fundamental rights—it also risks creating multiple, conflicting interpretations of law when not exercised with caution.
It is essential for the judiciary to recognize that its role is not to legislate from the bench but to interpret the laws as enacted by Parliament. Where ambiguity exists, the correct course is for the matter to be referred to a larger bench or for Parliament to step in with clarifying legislation.
### Conclusion: Strengthening the Doctrine of Precedent
The issue of “Bench vs Bench” conflicts within the Supreme Court calls for an urgent reassertion of judicial discipline and adherence to established principles of precedent. While the judiciary has a vital role in interpreting the law, it must do so in a manner that promotes consistency, predictability, and fairness.
By encouraging the referral of conflicting rulings to larger benches and reinforcing the binding nature of precedents, the Supreme Court can address this troubling trend and restore certainty in the application of the law. Additionally, there is a need for introspection within the judiciary regarding its role in shaping laws, ensuring that judicial interpretations align with legislative intent and the broader objectives of justice.
In conclusion, resolving the issue of “Bench vs Bench” will require a combination of judicial discipline, procedural reforms, and a commitment to the rule of law.