Constitution Bench of Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India seldom comes across cases that question certain laws mentioned in the Constitution, which demand significant attention from the apex court. The Constitution Bench is the authority that oversees such cases that question the translation of the Constitution.

According to Article 145(3) of the Indian Constitution, the minimum number of Judges on a Constitution Bench is five.

What is the Role of a Constitution Bench?

As the apex court of the country, the Supreme Court is responsible for guarding the fundamental rights of the citizens and protecting their freedom and liberty. Whenever there is a substantial question of law involving the interpretation of the Constitution or to decide any matter referred under Article 143, wherein the President consults the Supreme Court on a question of law, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is formed.

Who decides cases to be heard by the Constitution Bench?

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) is responsible for deciding which cases will be heard by the Constitution Bench, the number of judges in the bench and who will be the members of the bench. As there are no specific guidelines, the CJI has the sole discretion in such cases. Furthermore, it is not mandatory for the CJI to be a part of a Constitution Bench.

The Supreme Court started live-streaming Constitution Bench matters from 27 Sep 2022 since the judgements affect the public at large.

Instances when a Constitution Bench is formed

• The case involves a substantial question of law pertaining to the interpretation of the Constitution.
• The Supreme Court’s opinion is required on a question of fact or law under Article 143 of the Constitution.
• Two or more three-judge Benches of the Supreme Court have delivered conflicting judgements on the same point of law, thus demanding a more definite judgement by a larger Bench.
• A three-judge Bench doubts if the judgement of a previous three-judge Bench is correct and refers the case to a larger Bench for reconsideration.

Constitution Benches are formed only as and when the need arises.

Authority of a Constitution Bench

In most cases, the decision of the Constitution Bench is final and unlikely to be overruled for a long time. The only way to overrule such a verdict is to first convince another Bench of five judges that the Supreme Court’s previous decision was wrong and have them refer the case to a larger seven-judge Bench. After that, you need to convince the seven-judge Bench to overrule the previous judgement and give a new verdict for the case.

There may be instances where the decision of all the judges presiding the case might not be the same. In such cases, the final verdict will be given on the basis of the majority opinion of the judges, which is also known as the ‘collective opinion’ of the court.

Significant Constitution Bench Cases

Some significant Constitution Benches recognized for some landmark decisions are:

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
In 1977, when the Government seized the passport of Maneka Gandhi in ‘the interest of general public,’ Gandhi approached the Supreme Court. The scope of Article 21 was expanded by the seven-judge Bench, which ruled that ‘personal liberty’ is ‘of the widest amplitude’ covering ‘a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man.’

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (retd) v. Union of India
In 2012, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhar scheme. A nine-judge Bench in 2017 recognized the right to privacy as one guaranteed under the Constitution. It ruled that while the right to privacy is intrinsic to an individual’s ability to exercise bodily autonomy, it is still not an ‘absolute right.’

Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar
In 1962, a five-judge Bench supported the constitutional validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code that penalizes sedition. However, the apex court stated that Section 124A must only be interpreted to penalize statements that instigate public disorder.