Judicial Process:

CJI Gogai nomination to Rajya Sabha: Independence of Judiciary as well

https://www.livelaw.in/columns/justice-arun-mishras-controversial-tenure-leaves-questions-on-p
ublic-confidence-in-judiciary-162309 : J. Arun Mishra way of judging and judgment in his
tenure
Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India ​- live broadcasting of court proceedings -
“sunlight is the best disinfectant”
J. Chandrachud comment on his bday
J. Aaron Barak How judges judge
https://www.livelaw.in/columns/how-judges-judge-163339​ How judges judge
In the month of June, the Supreme Court had accepted the apology of an advocate who had made
an appearance before the Court, whilst lying on the bed dressed in a T-shirt, and emphasised on
the need to maintain minimum court etiquette during court video hearings.
Rajasthan High Court once ​adjourned ​a Bail plea on account of inappropriately dressed counsel
in a "baniyan" (undervest) during the Video conference hearing.
Recently, the Orissa High Court ​condemned the practice of lawyers arguing cases through VC
from inside vehicles, gardens & while eating etc.

Furthermore, Calcutta High Court had initiated suo motu contempt action against an
advocate-on-record for posting on 'LinkedIn' a screenshot of the virtual court hearing of the day
when a favourable interim order was passed by the Single Judge while calling for affidavits.
[later dropped proceeding]
Screening Virtual Court Proceedings From Media: An Invitation To Opaqueness 

'No Longer Any Difference Between Physical And Virtual Courts; Get Used To It' : Justice Khanwilkar 

Angrej Singh v. State of Punjab, 2020 P&H HC: ​The Punjab & Haryana High Court on
Wednesday (28​th October) acknowledged a Lawyer's dedication and commitment in discharging
his duty towards his client, as he waited for his case to be heard by the Court while his
(Lawyer's) doli ceremony was on hold. Notwithstandinghis personal difficulty,as he got married
only yesterday night, and morning ceremony ofDolihas been on the hold due to him, since he has
been throughout sitting in the video conference, waiting for his turn in the larger interest of
discharging his duty to his client. This court wishes him a blissful and happy married life.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stated that it shall deliberate on the limitations of judges in
imposing conditions for bail, in view of 9 women lawyers seeking a stay on the bail condition
imposed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on July 30, in releasing a person, apprehended for
outraging the modesty of a woman, provided he visits the house of the complainant and requests
her to tie the Rakhi band to him "with the promise to protect her to the best of his ability for all
times to come."

Justice Arun Mishra's non-recusal from Indore Development Authority case ​In a
controversial order, Justice Arun Mishra stated that he will not recuse from heading the
Constitution Bench which was formed to decide the correctness of the interpretation give to
Section 24(2) of the new Land Acquisition Act by the 2018 Indore Development Authority case.
The petitioners in the case sought his recusal contending that there was apprehension of bias as
Justice Mishra had authored the 2018 judgment, which was under reference. Justice Mishra said
that it was for the judge to decide whether to recuse or not and that it will not be in the interests
of justice to recuse. ​(Case : ​Indore Development Authority and others v Manohar Lal and
others, SLP(c) No.9036-38/2019, decided on 24.10.2019)

BALAJI BALIRAM MUPADE vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [ CIVIL APPEAL

NO.3564/2020 ]
"Judicial discipline requires promptness in delivery of judgments."
The Supreme Court has 'reminded' the High Courts that delay in delivery of judgments is
violation of Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
"Judicial discipline requires promptness in delivery of judgments – an aspect repeatedly
emphasized by this Court. The problem is compounded where the result is known but not the
reasons. This deprives any aggrieved party of the opportunity to seek further judicial redressal
in the next tier of judicial scrutiny.​ " the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and
Hrishikesh Roy observed while considering an appeal filed against an order passed by
Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court. The order, the court noted, was pronounced on
21.01.2020 being only the operative portion, and the reasons were published on 09.10.2020 after
about 9 months.

Case Name Citation/Date Decision

Marbury v. Madison US Doctrine of Judicial Review

State of Madras v. V.G. Row our constitution contains

express provision for judicial
review of legislation as to its
confirmity with the
constitution

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union AIR 1997 SC 1125 In India, judicial review

of India broadly covers three aspects;
(1) judicial review of
legislative action, (2) judicial
review for judicial decision,
and (3) judicial review of
administrative action

Brij Bhurshan vs State of AIR 1950 SC 129 the Supreme Court struck
Delhi, down the East Punjab Public
Safety Act 1950, on the
ground that pre-censorship
restricted the freedom of the
press.
 Anuradha Bhasin v. UoI 2020 SC The Union Territory of
Jammu and Kashmir was
directed by Supreme Court to
review all orders suspending
the internet services
forthwith, all orders not in
accordance with law must be
revoked. Supreme Court held
that the Freedom of Speech
and Expression and the
Freedom to practice any
Profession or carry on any
Trade, Business or
Occupation over the medium
of internet enjoys
constitutional protection
under Art 19 (1) (a) and Art
19 (1) (g). The restriction
upon such fundamental rights
should be in consonance with
the mandate under Art 19 (2)
and Art 19 (6) of the
constitution inclusive of the
test of Proportionality.

R. v. Miller -
Illegal Migrant

Chinayaamad case bail pne

 
THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY vs. THE ANDHRA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED:
Judicial review should not be exercised virtually as a continuous oversight of the DA's
functions, observed the Supreme Court while setting aside orders passed by Telengana High
Court issuing directives to Designated Authority.These orders were passed in a writ petition filed
by "Andhra Petro" challenging the orders of the Designated Authority on the issue of imposition
of anti-dumping duty. Andhra Petro had applied to the Central Government, seeking imposition
of anti-dumping duty on imports of normal Butanol or N-butyl alcohol originating in and
exported into India from Saudi Arabia. The DA did not consider it appropriate to recommend
levy of Anti-Dumping Duty on the subject goods from Saudi Arabia and terminated the
investigation under Rule 14(b) of Anti-Dumping Rules. Thus, the Andhra Petro, filed writ
petitions before the High Court contending that its applications have not been duly considered in
accordance with provisions of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, especially Rules 2(b) and 2(d) of
the Rules of 1995
 
SOCIAL CHANGE:

1. Babita Puniya v. Defence Sec​. - Permanent commission of women in Army

2. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma ​- ​ equal rights of daughters to coparcenary property
3. Subash mahajan v State of Maha ​- reviewed in UOI v State of Maharashtra decided in
Prithvi Raj Chahuan v UOI, 2020: SC ST Atrocoities Act anticipatory bail - ​reintroduced
the bar on anticipatory bail to those accused under the Act.
4. MC Mehta v UOI​: SC directs removal of 48000 slum ​Dwellings Around Delhi Rail
Tracks In 3 Months; Stops Courts From Granting Stay , further on a later date ​states that
the Ministry of Railways, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, and the
Government of NCT of Delhi are going to take a decision on the issue raised in the
instant interlocutory applications and till then they will not take any coercive action
against the slum dwellers.
5. State of TN v Balu​: liquor sale ban on highway
6. Hyberad Encounter case
7. Charu Khurana v UOI​: Art 14 2015
8. Naz Foundation
9. NALSA v. UoI
10. Navtej Singh Johar v. UoI​, 2018 - 377 read down
11. Joseph Shine v. UoI, ​2019 - Adultery (r/w previous judgment of Abdula Aziz and
Somitra Jain)
12. Common Cause v. UoI - ​Euthanasia
13. Shafin Jahan v. KM Asokan, ​2018 - Hadiya marriage case/ love jihad
14. Sharyro v UOI​, 2017 (Triple talaq)
15. Independent Thought v UOI ​- marital rape
16. Indian Young Lawyer Assn v UOI​, 2018 Sabrimala case-review pending
17. Vishaka v. Rajasthan ​- sexual harassment
18. Roxann Sharma Vs Arun Sharma ​- when estranged parents are involved in a legal
tussle over the custody of a child who is under the age of five years, the custody of the
child will remain with the mother.
19. Laxmi v. UoI ​- Acid attack
20. Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand ​- ​reservation in promotions in public positions
is not a fundamental right and States cannot be compelled to provide reservation in
appointments and reservations of public posts.
21. Indibility Creative Pvt Ltd and others v Government of West Bengal and others​,
2019 - ​Public officials and the State Government are subject to the rule of law and cannot
gag free speech due to fear of violence. The ban imposed on the Bengali film was
overturned and compensation was provided to the producers.
22. Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha and anr. V. State of Gujarat ​- ​The Supreme Court today has
struck down the April 17 notification of the Gujarat Labour and Employment
Department, which grants exemption to all factories in Gujarat from provisions of the
Factories Act, 1948 relating to daily working hours, weekly working hours, intervals for
rest and spread-overs of adult workers and even from the duty to pay overtime wages at
double rates as fixed under section 59 of the Act.
23. Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (AHAR) v State of Maharashtra, WP(c)
No.576/2016, decided on 17.01.2019)- ​The Court however upheld several provisions of
 the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms
and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016. The Court approved
the definition of 'obscenity' in the Act as not vague, and also the ban on throwing
currency notes and money on the performers. The complete prohibition on serving
alcohol in the dance bars was quashed as disproportionate.
24. RTI applicable to the office of CJI- ​In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court held that
the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information
Act. The Constitution Bench comprising the then CJI Ranjan Googi, Justices Ramana,
Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna upheld the the 2010 judgment of Delhi
HC which had held that RTI Act was applicable to CJI's office. The Court has however
underlined the importance of maintaining confidentiality in some aspects of judicial
administration, and has qualified the right to information on the grounds of public
interest. Penning his separate but concurring opinion while dismissing the appeal against
Delhi HC judgment that held office of CJI is under purview of RTI Act, Justice DY
Chandrachud ​observed that the basis for the selection and appointment of judges to the
​ entral Public
higher judiciary must be defined and placed in the public realm. ​(​Case : C
Information Officer, Supreme Court v Subash Chandra Agarwal​, Civil Appeal No.
10044 of 2010, decided on 13.11.2019)
25. Ews check

CONTEMPT OF COURT

In ​Brahma Prakash Sharma v State of Uttar Pradesh​, the Supreme Court had held that in order
to constitute the offence of Contempt of Court, it was not necessary to specifically prove that an
actual interference with administration of justice has been committed.

In the case of ​PN Dua v Shiv Shankar and others​, the Supreme Court held that mere criticism
of the Court does not amount to contempt of Court.

In ​Pritam Lal v. High Court of M.P ​the Supreme Court held that to preserve the proceedings of
the Courts from interference and to keep the streams of justice pure, it becomes the duty of the
Court, to punish the contemner in order to preserve its dignity.

The same jurisprudence was reiterated in ​Dr D.C. Saxena v. Hon’ble The C.J.I. ​where the court
held that scandalising the court or judge, undermines people’s confidence in the administration
of justice and brings the Court into disrepute. Such disrespect tantamounts to criminal contempt

In Re Honble J CS Karnan 2017: Alleging irregularities in appointment of district judges

collegium system, nepotism, favouritism, allegation of corruption

CBI Addl.Director Nageswara Rao held guilty of Contempt of Court: ​The Supreme Court
bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi held CBI Additional Director M Nageswara Rao guilty of
contempt of court for transferring the investigating officer heading the probe in Muzaffarpur
shelter home case in violation of the orders of the Court. The Court sentenced him till the rising
of the Court and imposed a fine of Rs. one lakh, after noting that the transfer orders were passed
by him despite knowing that the SC had ordered that the investigation team should not be
changed. ​(Case : ​Nivedita Jha v State of Bihar and others​, SLP(c) No. 24978/18, decided on
12.02.2019)

Anil Ambani held for contempt in Reliance -Ericsson case: ​A bench of Justices R F Nariman
and Vineet Saran held Anil Ambani, Chairman of Reliance Communications, guilty of contempt
of court for defaulting payments to Ericsson as per the undertaking given to the Court. The three
Reliance Companies - RCom, Reliance Telecom and Reliance InfraTel- were also held guilty of
contempt, and fine of Rs One Crore each was imposed on them. The Court granted an
opportunity to Reliance companies to purge contempt by paying Rs.453 crores to Ericsson within
4 weeks. Later, Ambani avoided prison by clearing the dues. Meanwhile, another controversy
had occurred, when the order issued by Court on January 7 requiring personal presence of
Ambani and other officers was found to be tampered with. Though the bench had specifically
made it clear that personal appearance is not dispensed with, the copy of the order uploaded in
the official website of the top court stated personal appearance is dispensed with. This led to an
internal enquiry, resulting in the summary dismissal of summarily dismissed two court masters,
Manav Sharma and Tapan Kumar Chakraborty. ​(Case : ​Reliance Communication Ltd and Others
v State Bank of India and others,​ WP(c) 845/2018, decided on 20.02.2019)

When contempt is in the face of the court : Advocate Mathews Nedumpara's case: A ​ bench of
Justices R F Nariman and Vineet Saran h​ eld Advocate Mathews Nedumpara guilty of contempt
of court and sentenced him t​ o three months imprisonment and barred him from practicing in SC
for one year. It was held that the sentence will remain suspended so long as he abides by his
undertaking that he will not attempt to browbeat any judge of High Court or Supreme Court. The
Court's action was triggered by Nedumpara's reference to Senior Advocate Fali S Nariman
while alleging that only relatives of judges were being designated as senior advocates. Despite
the cautioning by the court, he repeated the reference. When questioned about it, he denied
having done so. When the others present in the Court confirmed his action, he attempted to
justify his references. The Court's finding was not based on his solitary action of taking the name
of Senior Advocate Fali S Nariman. Rather, the Court took into account several past orders
passed by the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court deprecating the rough conduct of
Nedumpara in Court. The Supreme Court followed the dictum that when contempt is in the face
of court, summary procedure can be followed to inflict punishment "then and there". (Case :
National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and others vs Union of India,​ WP(c)
191/2019, decided on 12.03.2019)

In re Prashant Bhushan:

Delhi High Court Bar Association has issued a statement condemning the letter written by
Andhra Pradesh ​Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy to the Chief Justice of India, ​wherein
he has alleged Justice NV Ramana of interfering with the administration of justice by the State's
High Court. DHCBA has called the act of both writing and circulating such a letter in the media
an act of 'overawing the judiciary', which amounts to the contempt of the Supreme Court.

Yatin Oza Contempt Case

The Attorney General for India, KK Venugopal has granted his consent for initiation of contempt
proceedings against comedian Kunal Kamra, ​over his latest tweet passing comments on the
CJI.​https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/attorney-general-grants-consent-to-initiate-contempt-agai
nst-comedian-kunal-kamra-166137

Attorney General KK Venugopal has refused to grant his consent for initiation of criminal
contempt proceedings against Advocate Prashant Bhushan for his recent tweet over CJI Bobde's
visit to Madhya Pradesh

DISSENT - https://thewire.in/law/right-to-dissent-constitution-justice-deepak-gupta
A.K. Gopalan v. Madras - ​Majority:- If the procedure mentioned in those articles is followed
the arrest and detention contemplated by article 22(1) and (2), although they infringe the
personal liberty of the individual, will be legal, because that becomes the established legal
procedure in respect of arrest and detention.
Fazl Ali, J​.- Procedure must be ​reasonable and fair.
“The question is whether the principle that no person can be condemned without a hearing by an
impartial tribunal which is well-recognized in all modern civilized systems of law and which
Halsbury puts on a par with well-recognized fundamental rights cannot be regarded as part of the
law of this country.…. If that is so, then ‘procedure established by law’ must include this
principle, whatever else it may or may not include”
This view was later ​accepted in R.C. Cooper’s case (Bank Nationalisation Case).

Kharak Singh vs. The State of U.P. and Ors.

Question:-​ Whether right to privacy is a fundamental right?
Majority:-​ Right to privacy is not a fundamental right.
“As already pointed out, the right of privacy is not a guaranteed right under our Constitution and
therefore the attempt to ascertain the movements of an individual which is merely a manner in
which privacy is invaded is not an infringement of a fundamental right guaranteed by Part III.”
Subba Rao, J​:-​ Right to Privacy is a fundamental right.
“It is true our Constitution does not expressly declare a right to privacy as a fundamental right,
but the said right is an essential ingredient of personal liberty.”

Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Ors. ​vs. ​Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
Question:​ Whether BCCI is ‘State’ under Article 12?
Majority:​ BCCI cannot be held to be a State for the purpose of Article 12.
S.B. Sinha, J.: Board of Control for Cricket in India (Board) falls within “Other Authorities”
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Almost a decade later, in ​BCCI vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors.1​ 2 ​a Division Bench of
the Supreme Court held that even though BCCI is not ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of
the Constitution, since it is discharging important public functions it is amenable to writ
jurisdiction under Article 226.

The dissent by Justice Indu Malhotra in the case of Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State
of Kerala9 sparked discussion relating to the extent to which the courts can interfere in the
matters of religion. Justice Malhotra opined that issues with a deep religious connotation
shouldn't be tinkered with to maintain a secular atmosphere in the country10 and said that the
notions of rationality cannot be brought into the matters of religion.

A Supreme Court Collegium’s (led by CJI S.A. Bobde) decision to transfer Delhi High Court
judge Justice S. Muralidhar to the Punjab and Haryana High Court has gained criticism.

Along with this, the collegium’s decision to transfer Bombay HC judge Justice Ranjit More to
the Meghalaya HC has also been criticised. It is opined that his transfer is due to his recent
‘controversial’ judgments, in the Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative (PMC) Bank crisis case.

In August, 2019, Chief Justice of the Madras HC, Justice V.K. Tahilramani was transferred to
the Meghalaya HC without specifying any reasons and the judge had requested the SC collegium
to reconsider its decision. As the request was denied, she had resigned from the services.

While sections of the Bar have questioned the transfer as well as the lack of transparency about
the exact reason, the Supreme Court (SC) has issued an official statement that the Collegium
indeed had cogent reasons and that these could be revealed, if necessary.

Retired SC judge Justice Ruma Pal once said: “The mystique of the process, the small base from
which the selections were made and the secrecy and confidentiality ensured that the process may
on occasions, make wrong appointments and, worse still, lend itself to nepotism.” The attempt
made to replace it by a ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission’ was struck down by the
court in 2015 on the ground that it posed a threat to the independence of the judiciary. Dissenting
judge, Justice J. Chelameswar, termed it “inherently illegal”. Even the majority opinions
admitted the need for transparency. In an effort to boost transparency, the Collegium’s
resolutions are now posted online, but reasons are not given.

The notification came even as protests against their elevation continued to mount and the Bar
Council of India expressing its anger and deciding to send a delegation to meet the collegium to
that their decision of 10 January be withdrawn. Recalling that it had actively worked to sort out
the issue when around this time last by four senior judges of the SC came out to protest, the BCI
said it will if needed convene a meeting of all the state Bar Councils, High Court Bar
Associations and others to discuss the matter and to decide of what further action needs to be
taken.
Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Delhi High Court judge, Justice
Sanjiv Khanna, as judges of the supreme court
J.JOSEPH
Judicial Indeendence: 4 Seniormost judges press conference
 ​Review petition raising question(s) of law requiring determination by a larger
Bench​.—Court can refer question(s) of law to a larger Bench in a review petition, ​Kantaru
Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In re-9 J.)​ v. ​Indian Young Lawyers Assn.,​ ​(2020) 3 SCC 52​.

► ​Scope of review jurisdiction​.—The scope of review is limited. Review is not a rehearing

of appeal over again. In review petition, it is not for Court to reappreciate evidence and reach a
different conclusion, ​Akshay Kumar Singh​ v. ​State (NCT of Delhi)​, ​(2020) 3 SCC 431​.

PRECEDENT

Applicability​.—Ratio of a case can be extended to other identical situations, factual

and legal, but not mechanically disregarding the rationale of that case, ​Deena v. ​Union
of India,​ ​(1983) 4 SCC 645​, 660, 661, 665; ​Rafiq v. ​State of U.P.,​ ​(1980) 4 SCC 262​,
265.

► ​Scope of overruling of judgments of Supreme Court​.—Earlier precedent can

be overruled by a larger Bench if: (​i​) it is manifestly wrong, or (​ii)​ injurious to public
interest, or (​iii​) there is a social, constitutional or economic change necessitating it. A
coordinate Bench of same strength cannot take a contrary view and cannot overrule the
decision of earlier coordinate Bench. No doubt it can distinguish judgment of such
earlier Bench, or refer the matter to a larger Bench for reconsideration in case of
disagreement with the view of such earlier Bench, ​Shah Faesal v. ​Union of India,​ ​(2020)
4 SCC 1​.

► ​Precedents​.—A case is an authority only for what it actually decides and not for
what may logically follow from it. Every judgment must be read as applicable to the
particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the
expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole
law but governed or qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such
expressions are to be found. Observations in the judgment which were really not
necessary for the purposes of the decision and go beyond the occasion have no binding
authority and merely have persuasive value, ​Sreenivasa General Traders v. ​State of
A.P.,​ ​(1983) 4 SCC 353​, 379.
 A decision cannot be read as a statute and is an authority for the questions of law
determined by it as per fact situation, ​Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. ​Union of India,​ ​(2005) 4 SCC
649​.

Indian precedents as well as comparative law from foreign jurisdictions, assist in

determining contents and contours of rights, ​Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. v.
SEBI​, ​(2012) 10 SCC 603​ : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 76 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 202.

► ​Obiter Dicta​.—When question not specifically arising for decision but discussed
and observations made, such observations even though obiter entitled to respect by
succeeding bench of the Supreme Court, ​Prithi Pal Singh Bedi v. ​Union of India,​ ​(1982)
3 SCC 140​.

► ​Stare decisis​.—The words of Article 141, “binding on all courts within the territory
of India” though wide enough to include the Supreme Court, do not include the Supreme
Court itself, and it is not bound by its own judgments but is free to reconsider them in
appropriate cases, ​(1990) 3 SCC 682​.

Revisiting and revising of earlier decision can be done if it is in the interest of public
good or for any other valid and compulsive reasons, ​Jindal Stainless Ltd.​ v. ​State of
Haryana,​ ​(2010) 4 SCC 595​.

► ​Reconsideration​.—In order to enable the Court to refer any case to a larger

Bench for reconsideration, it is necessary to point out that a particular provision of law
having a bearing over the issue involved was not taken note of or there is an error
apparent on its face or that a particular earlier decision was not noticed, which has a
direct bearing or has taken a contrary view, ​CIT v. ​Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd​.,
(2010) 6 SCC 384​ : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 691.

► ​Per incuriam decisions​.—Decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some

inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority binding on the court concerned, so
that in such cases some part of the decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is
based, is found, on that account, to be demonstrably wrong, ​A.R. Antulay v. ​R.S.
Nayak,​ ​(1988) 2 SCC 602​. ​See also MCD​ v. ​Gurnam Kaur,​ ​(1989) 1 SCC 101​.
 Judgment rendered in ignorance of earlier judgments of Benches of co-equal
strength, would render the same per incuriam. Such judgment cannot be elevated to the
status of precedent, ​State of Assam v. ​Ripa Sarma,​ ​(2013) 3 SCC 63 : (2013) 1 SCC
(L&S) 474 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 44 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 13.

Means a decision rendered by ignorance of a previous binding decision such as a

decision of its own or of a Court of co-ordinate or higher jurisdiction or in ignorance of
the terms of a statute or of a rule having the force of law, ​Central Board of Dawoodi
Bohra Community v. ​State of Maharashtra​, ​(2005) 2 SCC 673 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 246 :
2005 SCC (Cri) 546.

► ​Per incuriam principle and its application​.—Rule of per incuriam literally

means judgment passed in ignorance of a relevant statute or binding precedent; or that
it is not possible to reconcile the judgment with a previous binding ruling of coordinate or
larger Bench. Per incuriam rule is strictly and correctly applicable to the ratio decidendi
and not to obiter dicta, ​Shah Faesal​ v. ​Union Of India,​ ​(2020) 4 SCC 1​.

► ​Reference to larger Bench​.—Reliance on Supreme Court decisions governing

different statutory rules does not require reference to larger Bench since basis of those
decisions is entirely different. Moreover, it is not question of unsettling law but more of
its application, ​State of U.P.​ v. ​Achal Singh​, ​(2018) 17 SCC 578​.

► ​Only ratio decidendi binding​.—A decision cannot be said to be an authority on

the issue that has not been decided, ​Haryana Wakf Board v. ​State of Haryana​, ​(2019)
13 SCC 382​.

► ​Unanimous decisions versus split decisions​.—There is no difference in

precedential value of unanimous decisions and those rendered by majority in split
decisions. Prayer to commute death sentence on ground that death sentence in appeal
was not unanimously approved but was approved by a 2:1 split decision, rejected. The
contention that death ought not to be awarded in case of a single dissent
notwithstanding opinion of majority is not supported by precedents, ​Manoharan v. ​State,​
(2020) 5 SCC 782​.

JUDICIAL Process with Administrative functions

 ► ​Restrictions on the powers of the Supreme Court​.—Petition to restrict the
powers of the Supreme Court under Article 136, dismissed, ​Mathai v. ​George​, ​(2016) 7
SCC 700​.

► ​Constitution of Benches and allocation of cases​.—Administrative prerogative

of Chief Justice of India in this regard, clarified. Chief Justice is the Master of Roster
and he alone has the prerogative to constitute Benches and allocate cases. Said
prerogative could not have been exercised by a two-Judge Bench giving directions for
constitution of a Bench of five senior most Judges of Supreme Court to decide present
writ petition. Even if imputations are hurled at the Chief Justice, said prerogative would
not hinge on whim of the litigant and Chief Justice can constitute a Bench to decide the
matter. By doing so, the Chief Justice does not become a Judge in his own cause. Said
prerogative is also given by Supreme Court Rules, 2013. It is contempt to imply that
Chief Justice would assign matter to a Bench which would not pass an adverse order
against him. Conduct of petitioner is wholly unethical and nothing but forum hunting. For
the said unwarranted conduct, petitioner is taking refuge under propositions of law that
justice should not only be done but seem to have been done. Such conduct is
deprecated, ​Kamini Jaiswal​ v. ​Union of India​, ​(2018) 1 SCC 156​.

► ​Role of Chief Justice as Master of Roster​.—Judiciary discharges function of

administration of justice in the process of judicial review. Foundation of judicial review is
faith of people. Judicial performance gains public faith and trust when guided by
independence, impartiality, fairness, competence and moral courage. Chief Justice
acting as Master of Roster takes into consideration various relevant factors so as to
eliminate element of arbitrariness. After assigning a matter to particular Bench role of
Chief Justice ends there and assignee Bench acquires complete dominion over the
case, ​Shanti Bhushan​ v. ​Supreme Court of India,​ ​(2018) 8 SCC 396​.

► ​Multiple petitions with similar or overlapping issues​.—When there is more

than one petition pending in Supreme Court on same, similar or overlapping issues
involving substantial questions of law re interpretation of the Constitution, they must be
proceeded together and be decided by a larger Bench to instil public confidence and
effectuate principle underlying Article 145(3), ​Kantaru Rajeevaru (Sabarimala Temple
Review-5 J.)​ v. ​Indian Young Lawyers Assn.,​ ​(2020) 2 SCC 1​.

► ​Reference to Constitution Bench​.—Cardinal rule is to achieve judicial balance

between crucial obligation to render justice and compelling necessity of avoiding
prolongation of lis. Any question of law of general importance arising incidentally, or any
ancillary question of law having no significance to final outcome would not require
reference. Casual and cavalier reference should not be undertaken. Responsibility vests
in Supreme Court not to indulge in excessive academic endeavours and to preserve
precious judicial time, ​Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. ​Karnataka Legislative Assembly​,
(2020) 2 SCC 595​.

Writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable even against private body provided it
discharges public functions, ​Rajbir Surajbhan Singh v. ​Institute of Banking Personnel
Selection​, ​(2019) 14 SCC 189​.

Appointment of District Judges​.— Members of subordinate judicial service, held,

are ineligible for being considered for appointment from direct recruitment quota for
advocates and pleaders. Rules of various High Courts precluding members of judicial
service from staking their claim as against posts reserved for direct recruitment from the
Bar, held, not ultra vires. Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, ​(2020) 7 SCC 401​.

Article 233(1) delineates appointing authority and deals with posting, appointment
and promotion of District Judges and Article 233(2) deals with eligibility criteria for
appointment. There are two sources of appointment, one, appointment of judicial
officers by way of promotion or merit promotion on basis of departmental examination
under Article 233(1); and the other, by direct recruitment from eligible practising
advocates or pleaders under Article 233(2). Dichotomy of two sources is required to be
maintained. Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, ​(2020) 7 SCC 401​.