This article, written by Jaanvi Jolly, explores the fascinating topic of the “Constitutional bench and its impact on the Judicial system.” It will take you on a journey with many amazing facts, introduce you to concepts like ‘master of roster,’ and engagingly present some landmark case laws. It also explores how technology is used to make the judiciary more efficient.
Introduction
Have you ever seen the cover page of our Indian Constitution? It’s so majestic that it fills your chest with pride. I don’t think the cover’s mere beauty makes us proud; it’s what the document represents.
If you think about it, the Constitution seems to be the only constant in all these years! The Supreme Court has played a vital role in this.
Imagine the Apex Court as a vast and intricate web of legal decisions, weaving together each strand of each decision to form the fabric of justice. At the heart of this web lies the constitutional bench. But why does the constitutional bench matter so much?
Consider it a group of the most learned and experienced judges who get together to decide questions relating to the scope of fundamental rights and interpretation of the Constitution, among other things. These constitutional benches have a minimum of five judges and are set up not for ordinary cases but when some constitutional provision is in question.
Now, you can understand that judgments passed by a constitutional bench do not merely interpret the law. Instead, they define the law for the future. We witnessed this in the case of Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru vs. the State of Kerala and Anr (1973) with the development of the ‘fundamental structure doctrine. With this brief introduction, we will begin by understanding the workings of the constitutional bench.
Constitution’s custodians: Understanding the constitutional bench
I will list some cases that every person, irrespective of their link to the legal world, would be aware of. Let us try to find the commonality in these landmark cases!
What do you think is common among all of these?
These were all constitutional bench decisions.
You would probably say, “We get that these were constitutional bench decisions.” But what exactly does that mean?
I will give you a hint to the answer by first telling you how many judges sat down and decided each case, as mentioned earlier!
The Ayodhya Ram Mandir case, the Same-Sex Marriage Case, the Triple Talaq Case, the Decriminalisation of Homosexuality Case, and the Sabarimala Case were all decided by a 5-judge bench. However, the Right to privacy case was decided by a 9-judge bench.
Now, what is one essential indicator of a constitutional bench?
Yes! It always has a minimum of 5 judges.
But what about the maximum?
The Constitution does not answer the question, but the largest bench we have had so far was in the Kesavananda Bharati case, where we had a 13-judge bench!
Did you know, in one of the episodes of the show ‘Kaun Banega Crorepati’ hosted by our beloved Amitabh Bachchan, one of the contestants was asked the question: How many judges did the largest constitutional bench in India so far have? This was probably a question for 50 lakhs or even 1 crore.
Can you believe it? Keep reading for many more amazing facts that might help you if you ever go on the show!
Now, let’s finally move to understanding the constitutional Bench deeply.
Constitutional provisions dealing with the constitutional Benches
Article 145(3) of the Indian Constitution states that “any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution” must be presided over by a bench of a minimum of five judges. This bench is called the constitutional bench. The constitutional benches are temporary and are created to decide a specific case.
Now that we know the source of setting up a constitutional bench, the next question arises: Why are these constituted? What specific issues do these benches deal with?
Circumstances when a constitutional bench may be constituted
Broadly, the issues that the constitutional benches decide can be divided into four categories:
- A constitutional bench can be formed if a case involves a substantial question of law related to the interpretation of the Constitution.
- A constitutional bench can be formed if the President of India seeks the opinion of the Honorable Supreme Court on a question of law or fact under Article 143 of the Constitution. For Example, see In Re: The Berubari Union and the Exchange of Conclaves (1960).
- If a two-judge bench and, later, a three-judge bench deliver conflicting judgments on the same legal issue, a constitutional bench can finally be set up to decide the matter and declare the law.
- Suppose a three-judge bench delivers a judgment on an issue that has been decided differently by a previous three-judge bench decision. In that case, the constitutional bench can be set up to put the matter at rest and declare the law.
I always wondered who decides which cases would be decided by which judge. Who decides who all judges would be sitting on a constitutional bench? You would have thought about these, so let’s find the answer together!
Before we proceed to the answer, we need to understand what we mean by “master of the roster.”
Master of the roster
The term master of the roster is used in various common law jurisdictions and refers to the Chief Justice’s power to set up the benches and allocate cases.
When the Honorable Supreme Court was established in 1950, it only had 7+1 judges. All eight judges sat together to decide every case. However, with the passage of time, the number of judges has been increasing. Presently, it stands at 33+1 judges. With increased strength, allocating cases and creating benches has become important.
Let’s have a quick look at the periodic increase in the number of judges at the Supreme Court:
- 1950: 8 Judges
- 1956: 11 Judges
- 1960: 14 Judges
- 1978: 18 Judges
- 1986: 26 Judges
- 2009: 31 Judges
- 2019: 34 Judges
The Chief Justice of India directs the registrar to prepare the roster per his orders. The Chief Justice can also amend the allocation of judicial tasks.
Did you know, in 2018, the judge’s roster was made public? Now, if you visit the Supreme Court website, you will find the option of the Judges Roster Tab, where you can see the subject matters assigned to the judges. This has indeed increased transparency.
Now, we understand that the Chief Justice of India holds an eminent position and undertakes various essential duties. One of those duties, or powers, is setting up a constitutional bench. He sets up the benches and also assigns them cases.
Vital statistics about constitutional benches
Number of judgments that constitutional benches have delivered
What are the number of decisions that the constitutional benches of the Supreme Court have delivered since its inception in 1950?
It’s 2558 cases from 1950 to 31st December 2024!
Number of constitutional bench judgments that were delivered in 2024
12 decisions were delivered by the constitutional benches in the year 2024. Some of these are listed below:
Decade of the maximum number of constitutional bench decisions
From 1960 to 1969, around 1145 decisions were given by the constitutional benches. Interestingly, Honorable Justice K.N. Wanchoo is the judge who was a part of the maximum number of constitutional benches with 686 judgments. He had a long tenure from 11 August 1958 to 24 February 1968.
Key Functions of the Constitutional Bench
Final interpreter of constitutional provisions
The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India plays a pivotal role in interpreting the Constitution. It addresses substantial questions of law, resolves conflicts in constitutional interpretations, and protects fundamental rights. Would ‘life’ under Article 21 include the right to livelihood? The Apex Court will give you an answer. Would the wearing of a hijab by Muslim women be considered a practice protected under Article 25? The Apex Court would provide us with an answer!
Let’s discuss some instances where the Supreme Court discharged the function of interpreting the Constitution.
Interpretation of Article 21
The best way to understand this function is to read Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Let’s read the very brief article:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
However, the various constitutional benches have expanded this simple provision to give us many rights over the years. “Life” has been interpreted broadly to include a meaningful and complete life instead of a mere animal existence.
Some of the rights granted via expansive interpretation are:
Interpretation of Articles 25 and 26
One of the most creative developments in the ‘right to freedom of religion’ has been the development of the ‘essential religious practice’ doctrine. It was developed to answer the question: What spiritual practices are protected under Article 25?
Legal protection is granted only to practices deemed “essential” to a religion—the practices that form the foundation of that religion. Recently, we saw a discussion on essential religious practices in the Sabarimala case. The question arose as to whether the exclusion of women aged between 10 and 50 from the Sabarimala temple is an important religious practice. The answer given by the constitutional bench was negative.
As per the constitutional bench, a practice would only be considered essential if the nature of religion would change without it. The parts that do not affect the ‘core’ were considered mere embellishments.
Final arbitrator of conflicts between constitutional provisions and laws
In India, more than 200 laws exist on every subject. This reflects the proactive role that the legislature plays in curating laws according to the needs of the time. However, sometimes a conflict arises between constitutional values and the express statute or where no statutory provision exists. Let us explore how the constitutional benches dealt with such situations!
Case on irretrievable breakdown of marriage
One such situation arose in the case of Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan (2023), in which the married couple had been living separately for a long time, and their marital tie was dead beyond repair. However, while one party wanted to opt for a divorce by mutual consent, the other did not.
In Indian law, the grounds for irretrievable breakdown of marriage are not yet available to couples to separate. A divorce decree can be passed if statutory requirements are fulfilled or parties mutually consent.
This is where this case becomes essential!
Here, the constitutional bench had to create a workable solution between Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, which is based on the principle of doing justice in every matter, and the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and Special Marriage Act 1954.
In this case, the Honorable Supreme Court held that the marriage is broken if the court is fully satisfied. Beyond salvation, despite one of the spouses refusing to consent to a mutual divorce, the court can exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice to the parties and pass a divorce decree.
Case on the right of maintenance to Muslim women
The landmark case of Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum (1985) was one of the initial cases in which the personal law systems gave way to constitutional values. In this case, the issue was related to the application of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, which dealt with the maintenance grant to the Muslim community.
Personal law advocates contended that, in Muslim law, the husband must provide for the maintenance of the divorced wife only during the iddat period and not a day longer. According to them, this position holds good irrespective of the wife’s post-divorce financial situation.
The Apex Court rejected this contention, stating that the right conferred by Section 125 CrPC can be claimed irrespective of the parties’ law. It would override the restrictions present under Muslim personal law.
Final addressor of issues of national importance
In a territorially large and culturally diverse country like India, questions related to law, public policy, division of power, culture, religion, etc., arise every other day! When these arise, all the parties concerned look to the Supreme Court for a just, fair, and equitable decision.
These decisions are often of national importance and, therefore, fall within the jurisdiction of the Apex Court. In these cases, the constitutional bench sits and authoritatively decides these issues. Let’s discuss some examples where the constitutional bench agreed on questions of national importance.
Demonetisation case
No one could forget the evening of 8th November 2016, when our Prime Minister addressed the nation to declare that the existing 500 and 1000 currency notes would no longer be used! This decision was taken under Section 26 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, which allows the union government to declare specific currency notes no longer legal.
The scheme’s constitutionality and implementation were challenged before a constitutional bench in the case of Vivek Narayan Sharma vs. Union of India (2023). Some of the questions before the constitutional bench were:
- Was the demonetization policy in line with the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934?
- Did the limit on cash withdrawal violate the right to equality and livelihood?
- Did the unreasonable manner of implementation violate the right to equality and livelihood?
The constitutional bench held that the policy was valid and constitutional. It had a reasonable nexus with the objective of eradicating black money. This case indicates that no one can ever guess what question the constitutional benches may be called upon to discuss!
Control of civil servants in Delhi case
I am sure you know about the special status Delhi’s national capital enjoys under our Constitution. While it is a union territory effectively under the control of the Union via the Lieutenant Governor, it also has its own elected government. So, if different parties are in power at the union level and in Delhi, a power struggle is bound to happen!
In such situations, the Supreme Court must resolve the conflicts. One such conflict recently arose in the case of the Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India (2023). In this case, the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court answered a fundamental question: Who will have control over the national capital Delhi’s civil servants and their day-to-day administration?
As stated above, Delhi has a dual power structure. It has been given some special powers under Article 239AA as the national capital. One provision of this article discusses the division of legislative powers in Delhi.
Using the same provision, the constitutional bench authoritatively held that the Delhi Government and the legislative assembly will have the power to make laws on ‘all the subjects in the state list’ under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution except public order, land, and police. Since the subject of ‘state public services’ does not fall within the excepted subjects, the Delhi government will have the power to control it.
Final decision maker on matters involving fundamental rights
Cases on the right to life
The majority of constitutional bench decisions have indeed been to interpret and expand the fundamental rights of the citizens. The most expansive development has been in the case of Article 21, protecting our right to live. Let’s look at some landmark cases related to Article 21.
- Olga Tellis and Ors vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors (1985): The story of this case began in 1981 when the Bombay Municipal Corporation started an eviction drive against pavement and slum dwellers. Before the Supreme Court, the argument was raised for these pavement and slum dwellers that their eviction would deprive them of their right to livelihood.
Agreeing with this argument, the Honorable Supreme Court held that evicting pavement dwellers using force without giving them a chance to explain would violate their right to livelihood. The court further held that the easiest way to deprive a person of his right to life is to deprive him of his means of livelihood.
They live on the footpath because they have “small jobs to nurse in the city and they have nowhere else to live”. They live on filthy footpaths due to helplessness and not to offend, insult, or annoy anyone.
- Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978): This case was linked to the ‘right to go abroad’ as a fundamental right by its inclusion in the term “personal liberty” under Article 21. This right can only be restricted according to the procedure established by law. The petitioner in this case was granted a passport on 1 June 1976, as per the Passport Act 1967.
However, on 4 July 1977, she received a letter from the passport office that her passport needed to be impounded in the public interest. She was not given any reasons for the order on public interest grounds.
The Honorable Supreme Court held that the Passport Act 1967 does not provide a procedure for impounding a passport. Even if a procedure could be said to have been prescribed, it was unreasonable and arbitrary as it did not allow the holder to be heard against the order of impounding. Therefore, the provision dealing with the impounding of passports was held to be unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21.
- Sunil Batra Etc vs. Delhi Administration and Ors. Etc (1978): The petitioner in this case was a convict serving a life sentence who was placed in solitary confinement in prison. He challenged this order of solitary confinement before the Supreme Court.
The Honorable Supreme Court made a fascinating observation that just because a person is convicted and put behind bars, he is not ipso facto deprived of all of his fundamental rights. He is guaranteed the rights under Article 21, according to which he shall not be deprived of his life or personal liberty, except as per procedure established by law.
It was further stated that a person’s liberty inside the prison is already significantly curtailed. If his freedom to move around and talk to other convicts is also prohibited, that would violate Article 21 unless a back-up established procedure.
Cases on the right to equality
A bouquet of articles forms a part of the right to equality in our Constitution. Articles 14, 1,5, and 16 deal with different aspects of the equality principle. The question of reservations has been the subject of innumerable constitutional bench decisions. Some of these we will be discussing below:
- The State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh (2024): In the sphere of reservations, we have had a recent case of The State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh (2023). In this case, the constitutional bench dealt with sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
The Apex Court declared that unequal cannot be treated equally. Sub-classification can be made if substantial differences exist between different groups within the SCs and STs. This would mean that if certain castes within the SCs are more backward than the others, a fixed number of seats can be allocated for them within the reserved seats. This would provide them with guaranteed representation and the opportunity to progress.
- Indra Sawhney, Etc. Etc. vs. Union of India and Others, Etc. Etc. (1993): This is by far the most important case on the subject of reservation policy in India. The case arose against the implementation of the Mandal Commission report, which provided 27% reservation in educational institutes and government employment to the Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The constitutional bench clarified numerous points of law in this case:
- Article 16(4) is not an exception to the rule of equality; it’s a facet of it.
- The State can classify the backward classes into backward and more backward if substantial differences exist between them.
- The creamy layer principle was also considered constitutional and essential to benefit the most deserving classes.
- It also declared a significant limit upon reservation policies by restricting it to a maximum of 50%.
- Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (2020): Even on the principle of equality between genders, we have seen a proactive approach by the Supreme Court. The 2005 Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 has made the females coparceners in their families since birth. The Apex Court, in this case, answered two questions:
- Does the daughter’s father claiming rights as a co-parcener need to be alive on the date of the Amendment to avail of the benefit?
The Apex Court held that the rights as a coparcener arise at birth and under being born 4 degrees from the last male holder. Father being alive or not on the date of the Amendment would be of no consequence.
- From which date can the daughters claim these rights? The right as a co-parcener is conferred by birth. However, these rights can only be claimed from the date of the Amendment.
Importance of constitutional bench decisions for different functionaries
For judicial officers
We all know that the judgements of the constitutional benches are binding on all the courts in the country, but has this been provided in the Constitution? Yes, let’s read Article 141 of the Indian Constitution:
“The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.”
- Judicial officers nationwide are bound to know and apply the law as laid down by the constitutional benches. For instance, if specific directions about the preconditions before summons are issued to the accused under Section 227 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, are laid down, or particular directions about default bail are laid down, all the courts of India are duty-bound to follow the dicta of the Apex Court.
- Knowledge about all the recent constitutional bench decisions would help judges resolve conflicting interpretations of the law and bring uniformity in decision-making.
- The constitutional bench decisions also guide judicial activism, for example, in the case of Vishakha & Ors vs. State Of Rajasthan and Ors (1997), which dealt with the prevention of workplace harassment. They guide and motivate judges to intervene in important matters where fundamental rights are at stake.
For legal birds
People like you and me, who are either in law school or are budding lawyers, must constantly be updated about all the decisions by the constitutional benches. Knowledge about these landmark cases is essential for an enriching law school journey and for setting up a successful legal practice.
- Since the constitutional bench decisions have a precedential value, lawyers can rely on these to further arguments in their cases.
- Various landmark constitutional bench decisions, such as the right to privacy or MC Mehta cases (Oleum gas leak case, Taj Trapezium case, etc.), have expanded the right to life under Article 21 to mean more than your animal existence. These decisions can be used to defend civil liberties, free speech, etc.
- Lawyers who grasp the various constitutional bench decisions are more successful in challenging unconstitutional government policies, legislations, or executive actions. For example, the Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024) (also known as the Electoral Bonds case) that struck down anonymous political funding can act as a strong precedent for cases dealing with transparency in election funding.
- A lawyer who is up to date about all the constitutional bench decisions and directions dealing with bail, the death penalty, etc., can better represent his client in the court of justice.
For policy framers
In India, we have a separation of powers, where the Parliament makes policies. The Honorable Supreme Court adjudicates any disputes that arise in the execution of such policies. However, despite this divide, policymakers can learn from constitutional bench decisions.
- Constitutional bench decisions are critical in limiting legislature and executive powers. This helps policymakers draft policies within the constitutional framework. This was evident in the case of Kesavananda Bharati, where the Supreme Court discussed the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution.
- The Honorable Supreme Court also impacts the social welfare policies framed by the government. For instance, in the Indra Sawhney case (also known as the Mandal Commission case), a 50% limit was set upon reservation. Now, every reservation policy made by the state or the union would have to follow this limitation.
- The Supreme Court has recently proved to be the torchbearer regarding environmental jurisprudence. Various judgements passed by the Apex Court help policymakers formulate pollution control policies and climate action plans.
- The constitutional bench decisions are also crucial for restricting governance. For example, in the Aadhaar judgement, the Honorable Supreme Court upheld using Aadhaar for welfare schemes but restricted its use in public sector transactions.
For the citizens
As we have seen in numerous cases, constitutional bench judgments often concern matters directly affecting citizens’ rights, freedoms, and daily lives.
- The Supreme Court must protect citizens’ fundamental rights through its judgment. We saw this, for example, in the case of the right to privacy, where unauthorised data collection and misuse of citizens’ data were prohibited.
- Constitutional bench decisions are often monumental in bringing justice to the marginalised groups. We saw this in the case of transgender people and LGBTQ groups. The judgements can grant representation to these groups and ensure equal participation in nation-building without any discrimination.
- The constitutional bench decisions are also crucial in protecting citizens from government overreach. For instance, in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati, the Honorable Supreme Court established a restriction on the powers of the government to amend the Constitution by developing the doctrine of the basic structure in the Kesavananda Bharati case. So, the government in power cannot amend the Constitution to take away fundamental rights like the right to life, etc.
- The Honorable Supreme Court has played a proactive role in expanding and protecting women’s rights in our country. For example, in the cases of Vishakha & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors (1997), which dealt with workplace harassment, and the Shayara Bano case, which dealt with the discriminatory practice of triple talaq, the court established a new phase of women’s rights.
Turning points in justice: Landmark cases that shaped the law
This part will discuss some of the watershed constitutional bench judgments in our legal history.
Kesavananda Bharati Case
Are you even a law student if you don’t know about the Kesavananda Bharati case?
This, by far, had the largest constitutional bench, a 13-judge bench. Well, that is not shocking. Since the importance of the question involved in the case was so great that we had already had two conflicting judgments upon the same question, we finally needed the final declaration!
That declaration came in 1973 and has remained the most critical constitutional bench case in Indian history. But what exactly required a 13-bench decision?
The primary question involved was: Can the Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights contained in Part III?
In answer to this question, the Honorable Supreme Court developed a fascinating “basic structure doctrine.” The Apex Court stated that Parliament can amend the Constitution, including the chapter on fundamental rights. However, it cannot amend the basic structure.
But what exactly does the basic structure include?
This question has not been exhaustively answered. However, through many judgements, many features like democracy, secularism, and the rule of law have been held to be part of the basic structure and beyond the reach of the Amendment.
What made the Kesavananda Bharati case a landmark?
The importance of the judgement lies in the various principles that it sets. Let’s have a look at these:
- It set limits on the Parliament’s powers to amend the Constitution. Although it stated that the Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it carved out an exception in the form of the basic structure.
- It strengthened the principles of democracy and judicial review and declared that the judiciary keeps Parliament in check and protects the Constitution. Further, the judiciary retained the power to decide what matters would be considered part of the basic structure.
Did you know that the courts in Bangladesh and Kenya also cited this judgment? Yes, that’s true!
S.R. Bommai Case
The case discussed above brought in the doctrine of the basic structure. In this case, one feature of the basic structure was dealt with, which was federalism.
Federalism is the division of power between the centre and the states, which allows both powers to function independently in their spheres.
The question before the court in the case was: Can the Union government arbitrarily dismiss a state government under the powers of Article 356 of the Constitution on the grounds of a breakdown of constitutional machinery?
Secondly, whether the decision to proclaim the president’s rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review?
A constitutional bench decided on nine judges. The constitutional bench declared that the President’s rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review to check whether it was proclaimed with mala fide intentions. The Honorable Supreme Court also held that the President’s rule cannot arbitrarily dismiss an unfavourable state government without proof of a genuine breakdown of constitutional machinery.
What made the S.R. Bommai case a landmark?
The importance of this constitutional bench decision lies in the principles that were established by it:
- It strengthened the principle of federalism by prohibiting the misuse of Article 356 by the union government to dismiss unable state governments for political motives.
- Further, it also stated that the declaration of the President’s rule is an exceptional situation and must not be overused unwarrantedly. After this decision, the misuse significantly reduced granting stability to the state governments.
- The principle of judicial review further strengthens the checks and balances feature provided in the Constitution. This feature stops any misuse of power by any branch of the government.
With this, we can indubitably say that this case was a vital constitutional bench decision that strengthened the principles of federalism, democracy, and judicial review in India, which are necessary to uphold the constitutional ethos.
Aadhaar case
Did you know that before 2009, nothing called Aadhaar existed in India? Yes, you heard it right!
Let’s understand why the popular identification document stood challenged before the constitutional bench!
So, in 2017, in the famous K.S. Puttaswamy Case, or as it is famously known, the right to privacy case, the right to privacy was declared a part of Article 21 and made a fundamental right. But Aadhaar captures a lot of information, including fingerprints, biometric information, our address, etc. The question arises: how do we balance the right to privacy, which is a fundamental right, and the mandatory requirement of Aadhaar even for delivering private services?
This balance was achieved by the constitutional bench in another case in 2018. The primary question before the constitutional bench in this case was whether the mandatory requirement of Aadhaar would violate the right to privacy.
The constitutional bench held that while the Aadhaar policy is constitutional, it must have some restrictions regarding its usage. It cannot be made mandatory for all services. The government can use Aadhaar to provide citizens with the benefits of welfare schemes. However, it cannot be used for compulsory private services like mobile phones, SIM cards, bank accounts, etc.
Just to put things in perspective, can you imagine a country that was riddled with poverty, with a largely uneducated population and existent exploitative public relations, talking about the fundamental right of privacy? Makes you think how far we have come as a nation. Doesn’t it?
What made the Aadhar case a landmark?
The Aadhaar judgement is monumental in upholding the right to privacy of citizens while balancing the use of Aadhaar. Let’s understand why this case was so important:
- It strengthens the right to privacy as a fundamental right by restricting the use of Aadhaar to particular services.
- It protected citizens from being forced to produce an Aadhaar card when accessing services like banking, telecom, school, admissions, etc.
- It also prevented the possibility of data misuse.
Therefore, we can say that the constitutional bench reached a golden mean by guaranteeing the right to privacy and moving towards the digitization of identity along with welfare governance.
Triple talaq case
Did you know that before this judgement, once a man pronounced ‘Talaq Talaq Talaq’, his marriage with his wife ended, then and there?
He did not even have to see this to her face. He could also do this via phone, text, or email!
Yes, this right was only available to Muslim men and not Muslim women.
Discuss how this landmark constitutional bench decision marked a step toward women’s rights in India. In this case, the primary question was about the triple talaq practice’s validity and constitutionality.
The Honorable Supreme Court held that triple talaq is not an essential practice of Islam. Neither does it have a Quranic sanction. Therefore, what is morally ugly cannot be accepted as legally valid. Interestingly, this judgment was followed by legislation that made the pronouncement of triple talaq an offence punishable with up to 3 years imprisonment.
Let’s now discuss why the triple talaq case is a landmark.
- It strengthened the constitutional value of equality. It protected Muslim women from arbitrary divorces.
- It also strengthens the idea that the law must be fair and just for everyone, regardless of religion.
Therefore, this case was seen as a historical judgment favoring further reform in personal laws and the end of discriminatory practices to ensure equality.
Decriminalisation of Homosexuality case
Did you know that LGBTQ+ identity is not new in the 21st century? Our Indian historical texts reference individuals known as ‘kinnars’, etc. Surely, the group’s ambit has significantly widened in the modern day.
Homosexuality was not always considered a crime; instead, it was after the British blunder in India that this was made a crime under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The constitutional bench in the year 2018 delivered a historic judgment in the case of Navtej Singh Johar, which decriminalised homosexuality in India. This ruling had the impact of granting similar rights and equal dignity to the LGBTQ group. This judgment can be considered by far one of the most revolutionary judgments by our Honorable Supreme Court.
The key question before the constitutional bench was whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is violative of the fundamental rights of LGBTQ people.
By a unanimous judgement, homosexuality was decriminalised. It recognised the right of people to choose who they love and how they express their identity. it broke the binary of male and female and welcomed the LGBTQ group with wide arms of acceptance.
What made the Navtej Singh Johar case a landmark?
This case was indeed monumental in the lives of the LGBTQ community in India. Let’s understand what principal changes it brought in:
- It primarily recognised homosexuality and declared Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to be partially unconstitutional.
- It accepted the right to sexual orientation as a fundamental right.
- On the social level, it marked a revolutionary change in the acceptance of the LQBTQ community in India.
This judgment started discussions on public platforms about LGBTQ group rights in India. It removed the taboo attached to discussion and helped people come out of the closet and claim their rights.
After discussing the revolutions that the constitutional bench has successfully ignited, let’s discuss the problems faced by the constitutional benches.
Decoding the dilemmas: Challenges faced by the constitutional bench
In this segment, we will analyze some hurdles the constitutional bench faces.
Dreadful backlogs and delayed justice
Did you know that 82922 cases are currently pending before the Apex Court, and 28554 are less than one year old?
Out of these:
- 1151 cases are pending before a 3-judge bench;
- 259 are pending before a 5-judge bench;
- 35 before a 7-judge bench; and
- 69 are pending before a 9-judge bench
Another vital statistic is that 5261 cases were instituted last month, while 4470 cases were disposed of simultaneously.
To check the statistics, you can check the National Judicial Data Grid.
Now that we know that a constitutional bench has a minimum of five judges, these five judges are committed to deciding cases about the constitutional bench, which keeps them from deciding cases in a single bench or division benches.
Therefore, where two division benches and one single-judge bench could have been constituted, only a constitutional bench with the same number of people is formed. This slows the speed of the cases’ disposal and increases pendency.
Complex questions that make finding an answer a real task
You must have seen that a case originates in the Trial Court, then through appeal moves to the District Court, the High Court, and finally the Supreme Court. A question might arise in your mind that the same bare acts are provided in all the courts, and majorly, the same arguments are available to the judges at every level, then how do we see such divergent opinions?
We must understand that the questions that reach the Apex Court are often very complex; they do not have a straightforward correct answer.
For instance, the case of In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution (2023) dealt with abrogating the special status given to the state of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Constitution. The question of the propriety of the order and its consequences was not a simple one to decide.
Do you know that each judge of the Honorable Supreme Court has 4 law clerks cum researchers to help them in culling out relevant precedents or law points? Further, both sides present astonishing material to substantiate their arguments during the hearing. This indicates how complex and layered the process of finding an answer to that question is.
This is one reason the hearings before the constitutional benches take so long, and the judges require additional time to deliberate on the judgment.
Problem of subjectivity
Did you know that out of the 13 judges on the bench in the Kesavananda Bharati case, the verdict was split? Seven judges consented to the judgement, and six dissented! This is a clear example of how differing legal reasoning can be followed by different individuals. Even in the recent case where the policy of demonetization was challenged, four judges consented to the decision, and one dissented.
Therefore, in larger benches like those in constitutional benches of 5 judges, only the consent of 3 judges is required to declare the law. Very rarely, for instance, in the case of Navtej Singh Johar, where homosexuality was decriminalised, we received a unanimous verdict.
Need for a permanent constitutional bench
Various Chief Justices have highlighted the need for a permanent constitutional bench, but no such bench has yet been established. There are numerous benefits of having a permanent constitutional bench; some of these have been discussed below:
- Constitutional matters of grave importance would be decided quickly, as we will have a dedicated permanent constitutional bench to decide upon them.
- If we had a permanent constitutional bench, we would also be able to achieve uniformity and consistency in interpretations. Since different benches may interpret the constitutional provision differently, a permanent constitutional bench would help us avoid uncertainty.
- We have a huge backlog of cases in the Supreme Court. Therefore, having a dedicated constitutional bench would let the other judges take over the regular benches and lead to faster case disposal.
- Further, a dedicated constitutional bench will also create greater specialisation and expertise in dealing with particular matters.
The Indian Supreme Court is one of the world’s most respected and looked-upon judiciaries. Nevertheless, it has its share of hurdles, some of which have been discussed in this section.
In the next section, we will discuss the differences between the constitutional and regular bench.
Constitutional Bench vs. Ordinary Bench
One might ask what is so special about the Honorable Supreme Court in reference to the Constitution. Doesn’t it hear normal civil and criminal cases, too?
Well, yes, it does, but these are often heard by single-judge or division benches. However, constitutional benches always decide cases involving questions related to the Constitution.
This is because special causes require an extraordinary remedy!
In this segment, we will distinguish between a constitutional bench and a regular bench. The differences have been provided in tabular form for easy comparison!
| Features | Constitutional bench | Regular bench |
| Definition | A constitutional bench consists of five or more judges to decide important matters of interpretation of the Constitution. | A regular bench may consist of a single judge, a division bench, or a three-judge bench to hear regular matters. |
| Provision | Article 145(3) of the Indian Constitution deals with the setting up of a constitutional bench | These do not have a constitutional provision and are made as per the Supreme Court rules |
| Number of judges | A minimum of five judges, but can extend up to 7, 9, 11 or 13 judges or more. | These usually consist of a single judge, a division bench or three judges. |
| Subject matter heard | The constitutional bench is set up to hear matters of interpretation of the Constitution. | The regular benches hear civil cases, criminal cases, writ petitions, etc. |
| Binding Decisions | Since the bench is bigger, these are binding on all the smaller benches and can only be modified by a bigger bench. | The decisions are binding on the lower courts and benches of lower strength, but they can be overruled by benches of higher strength. |
| Frequency | There is no permanent constitutional bench as of now. These are constituted by the Chief Justice as and when required. | These benches sit regularly to decide matters. |
| Cases | A 13-judge bench decided the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973). | Voter-verifiable paper Audit trails (VVPATs) for voter verification were considered necessary in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law & Ors. (2016) was decided by a single judge bench. |
Building on the importance of the constitutional bench decisions, we will analyze the landmark judgments’ effects.
Ripple effects of landmark judgements
The constitutional bench decisions pronounced by our country’s top five or seven judges are bound to have a tremendous social impact. They are not only guided by the social will, but it also guides the social will, as was evident in the Sabarimala case and the Navtej Singh Johar case.
Let’s explore how far-reaching the impacts of these landmark judgments have been on the Indian legal landscape!
Sets precedents and removes any future ambiguity
Just like a lighthouse guides ships, and constellations guide sailors, the constitutional bench decision guides judicial courts all over India.
All the courts in India are bound to follow the decisions of the Honorable Supreme Court when deciding cases. This fosters a feeling of unanimity among all the courts.
For example, if the Honorable Supreme Court has held that only the Supreme Court can grant divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. This decision is binding on a court in Delhi and a court in Karnataka. You would get the same decision irrespective of where the case has been filed.
Evolution of society by revolutionary ideas
The judgements of the Supreme Court often reflect the changes that have occurred in society. For instance, the Sabarimala case, wherein the women were granted the right to enter a temple, that was earlier beyond their reach, reflects the sentiment of gender equality, which is prevalent in our society.
On the other hand, the case of Navtej Singh Johar stamped legitimacy upon LGBTQ relationships, bringing a new wave of acceptance for these groups in Indian society. Further, the right to privacy was made a fundamental right under Article 21.
I’m sure the makers of the Indian Constitution would also be astonished to see how the Indian Supreme Court has revolutionised the concept of fundamental rights in line with the current wave of ideas.
Maintain the separation of power and check government overreach
The most important tool that the Indian Supreme Court has is the power of judicial review. Using this tool, the constitutional bench has the power to strike down any law made by the Parliament that does not align with the constitutional ideals and declare it unconstitutional.
One instance, where the Honorable Supreme Court has done this is in the case of Shreya Singhal vs. U.O.I (2015), where Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which criminalised sending of offensive messages was declared to be unconstitutional as it violated the fundamental right of freedom of speech.
The constitutional bench decisions also ensure that the federal balance is maintained in the country, as we saw in the case of S.R. Bommai, where the Honorable Supreme Court cautioned against the union government’s misuse of powers under Article 356 to disable unfavourable state governments.
Apart from checking the constitutionality of legislation, the constitutional benches also have the power to review executive actions. One example was the case of Vivek Narayan Sharma vs. Union of India (2023) (also known as the demonetisation case), which has been discussed above. The Honorable Supreme Court had to decide whether the procedure carried out to implement the policy was legal.
Another example that comes to my mind is the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association vs. Union of India (2015) (also known as the NJAC case), which dealt with the issue of judicial appointments. The legislature introduced the National Judicial Appointment Commission to make appointments to the Apex Court and the High Courts, which included:
- The Chief Justice India;
- Two senior most judges of the Supreme Court;
- Union minister of law and justice;
- Two eminent jurists.
The NJAC was considered unconstitutional as it was seen to be against the independence of the judiciary.
After reading all of these examples, I am sure that you are clear about the impact that constitutional bench decisions have on maintaining the doctrine of separation of power and the independence of the judiciary.
The international influence of Indian decisions
The Indian Supreme Court is one of the world’s most respected judicial systems. It has delivered landmark judgments on important issues in constitutional law, human rights, privacy, and gender justice. These revolutionary decisions have inspired tradition and governments all around the world.
As we discussed above, the landmark case of Keshavananda Bharati was cited by the Bangladesh Court along with the Kenyan Court. We can see the impact that the Indian Supreme Court is having on the international level. So, Constitutional decisions are creating ripples of revolution not just in India but also abroad.
The landmark case of Navtej Singh Johar that decriminalised homosexuality removed the taboo around LGBTQ relationships and inspired movements globally by these groups to demand rights from their governments.
We are all aware of the legal luminary and exceptional environmentalist M.C. Mehta. Yes, this is the same MC Mehta, whose name you have seen innumerable Supreme Court judgements dealing with environmental issues. He was the petitioner in the cases in which the Supreme Court developed the principle of ‘polluter pays’ and the ‘precautionary principle’, which were created in the case of M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and Ors (1996). These principles have had a global impact on environmental litigation.
Next, we will proceed to discuss the various trends regarding the constitutional benches.
Wind of change: Analysing the recent trends
If the wind of change has been impacting all spheres of society, how can the Supreme Court of our country remain unaffected? In this segment, we will discuss the recent trends operating in the Supreme Court.
Increasing reliance on constitutional benches in key legal matters
Did you know that in just the first half of 2023, the constitutional bench had convened 55 times and delivered 13 judgments? Reflecting the proactive approach adopted by these constitutional benches.
The first question is, what does this trend point towards?
This is indicative of a shift in the judiciary’s focus on issues of constitutional interpretation, public interest, institutional reform, and national importance.
Whether setting up a constitutional bench the only solution?
Well, most of the issues brought before the court have been decided by benches of smaller strength. So, to overrule or modify those decisions, we need a constitutional bench to authoritatively declare the law.
Another aspect is that these issues would have wide-ranging ramifications. For instance, the challenge against the sedition law or the question related to reservations. These are all issues that affect the country at large and require thorough consideration by the constitutional benches.
Also, the Honorable Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognizance of various important issues that have been happening in the country. For example, the R.G. Hospital Rape Case (2024) or the Manipur Violence Case (2023). These sensitive topics require the setting up of a constitutional bench.
Well, on the one hand, there are some positive effects of this trend, which include important cases being resolved faster and clarity on important constitutional law topics. However, on the other hand, this increases the burden on the judiciary in respect of non-constitutional bench cases.
So, what is the solution? One answer could be to increase the strength of the High Courts and the Supreme Court to deal with the backlog.
Discussion on setting up a permanent constitutional bench
In 2023, the Honorable CJI Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud announced that the Supreme Court might soon have constitutional benches as a permanent feature. This aimed to resolve critical constitutional matters in a focused and speedy way. However, till now, we have not seen any final decision on the issue.
Dealing with a diverse range of subjects
In recent years, we have seen constitutional bench decisions that are not particularly limited to interpreting the Constitution but also delve into various allied fields. For instance, in 2018, we had the electro-bond scheme case. We also had a landmark judgement dealing with the extent of legislative immunity provided to the members of the Parliament.
Very recently, we had a case dealing with the regulation of industrial alcohol and answering the question of whether the centre or the states will have the power to regulate it.
We have also had judgments dealing with the issue of appointments in the public sector, in which the Honorable Supreme Court held that recruitment rules cannot be modified after the appointment process has commenced.
They also pronounced a landmark decision dealing with the arbitration agreement and the impact of its non-stamping. This reflects the broad ambit of constitutional bench decisions.
Setting in of technological revolution in the Apex Court
Laptops and iPads replacing paper files: Digital case management
Have you seen any recent constitutional bench proceedings? Did you notice each of the judges had a computer before them? Not just the judges but even the advocates have iPads etc in their hands, and papers are rarely seen!
Advocates often ask the judges to refer to a particular page number of the pleadings they have submitted, and the judges can easily scroll down to the required page number! This will save paper and thereby trees and time, making it convenient to refer to documents.
Video calling the Supreme Court
One positive aspect of the lockdown phase was the introduction of virtual court hearings. You must have attended or at least would have seen advocates joining court proceedings virtually at not just the Supreme Court but even at district courts from different parts of the country.
Our Supreme Court uses CISCO Webex to conduct virtual hearings, allowing advocates to join and participate virtually.
Live streaming the courtroom hearings
Yes, you heard it right! Now, you can watch the constitutional bench hearings from the comfort of your house. I remember watching the hearing on the same-sex marriage case while I was sitting in my college classroom! It was so interesting and enlightening.
This development happened due to the case of Swapnil Tripathi vs. Supreme Court of India (2018). In this case, a petition was filed to seek a declaration that Supreme Court cases of constitutional importance must be live-streamed to make them accessible to the public. The Apex Court accepted this plea by stating that this right flows from the right of access to justice.
You can also watch the hearings on YouTube! This has had a very positive impact on improving public access to judicial hearings.
Enter AI into the Supreme Court
Did you know our Supreme Court has its own Chat GPT? It’s called “SUPACE.” This tool can be used by judges, advocates, and legal researchers to find case analysis and for research purposes.
Exploring e-filing of cases
The Apex Court and the High Courts have introduced e-filing portals. These portals enable parties or their advocates to file their cases, petitions, etc., online without coming to the court.
Gone are the days when advocates lined up before the filing counter to file their cases. Now, they can do it right from their offices.
Need for some reforms to enhance efficiency
Setting up more benches
Due to the immense pendency prevalent in the Honorable Supreme Court, there have been suggestions to set up regional benches of the Supreme Court to deal with the pendency. Since we only have one Supreme Court in Delhi, the burden to decide the cases falls upon only 34 judges. More regional branches would divide the burden and speed up the decision-making process.
Set strict timelines
There must be a policy setting strict timelines for decisions in cases. We all know that often, the parties who initially filed the case do not live to hear the judgment. Therefore, we need some time-bound restrictions on how many hearings a case would take and when the judgment would be delivered.
Promote Alternate Dispute Resolution
Alternate dispute resolution is the new ‘IN’ thing. It benefits the parties by allowing them to reach a speedy decision outside the court. It also ultimately helps reduce the burden on the courts in India. Although cases of constitutional importance would still have to be heard by the constitutional benches, matters of a civil nature can be resolved via alternate dispute resolution.
Better case management:
There must be a year-wise case management system so that the cases that have been pending for the longest time can be heard and disposed of as early as possible. It must be remembered that justice delayed is justice denied.
Judicial performance review
There must be a system of judicial performance review to check how many cases a judge effectively disposed of in a fixed period. Judges are duty-bound to protect the interests of the parties in the case, and one of the interests of the parties is to get speedy justice.
Permanent constitutional bench
A separate constitutional bench is often established for every constitutional matter. However, if we set up a permanent constitutional bench that would hear only those specific matters, this would streamline the process. This would also leave all the other judges with more time to decide other matters.
Fast-tracking important cases
Some cases of immense national importance must be heard and decided on priority.
Conclusion
In this article, an attempt was made to not just tell you about what a constitutional bench is, but what the importance of the constitutional bench decisions are in our society. We can view the decisions of the constitutional benches like the Sun. Just like the sun gives its light and makes everything clear, these constitutional bench decisions also make the words of our Constitution clear. They bring out the ethos of our Constitution, framed almost 76 years ago, and keep it alive by interpreting it as per the needs of society.
Many cases were discussed in the article to explore the function of the constitutional benches and highlight how their decisions are essential for lawyers, students, policymakers, etc. The various challenges faced by the Apex Court, including a dreading backlog of cases, were also discussed, with some potential reforms. At last, we conclude the article by discussing the new trends adopted by the constitutional bench, the most striking one being the adoption of technology in its workings.
Frequently Asked Questions(FAQs)
What is the role of the constitutional bench in the Supreme Court?
The primary role of a constitutional bench in the Supreme Court is to decide matters of constitutional importance, such as the interpretation of constitutional provisions.
How many judges are required to form a constitutional bench?
A minimum of five judges are required to form a constitutional bench. No maximum limit is given.
What types of cases are heard by the constitutional bench?
The constitutional benches decide cases involving the interpretation of constitutional provisions.
How do constitutional bench decisions impact government policies?
The decisions delivered by the constitutional bench of national and societal importance often serve as a precursor to future legislation. For example, in the triple talaq case, the Supreme Court judgment was followed by legislation.
Can constitutional bench decisions be challenged?
The constitutional bench decisions can only be challenged before a bench of a higher strength. For example, if you want to challenge a five-judge bench decision, it can only be heard by a seven-judge bench.
How does the constitutional bench influence the interpretation of fundamental rights?
No, the Honorable Supreme Court, especially the constitutional benches, are considered guardians of fundamental rights. The constitutional benches design all matters that impact citizens’ fundamental rights.
Can High Courts constitute a constitutional bench?
No, only the Supreme Court has the authority to form a constitutional bench and is required to constitute a bench of 5 judges. However, High Courts can form larger benches, such as Full Benches (three or more judges) or Division Benches (two judges) for important decisions.
