15 Nine-Judge Bench Decisions In Supreme Court's History

A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court is at present considering the issues of religious freedom and fundamental rights mentioned in the Sabarimala review order.In this backdrop, it is pertinent to note that there have been 15 nine-judge bench decisions in the history of Supreme Court. Here is a list of 15 landmark decisions by nine-judge benches in the history of the Supreme Court (in chronological order). In Re: the bill to amend section 20 of the sea customs act, 1878 and section 3 of the central excises and salt act, 1944 ( "The Sea Customs Case" 1963) The 9-judge bench comprising Justices B Sinha, C.J., A.K. Sarkar, J.C. Shah, K.C. Das Gupta, K.N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, P.B. Gajendragadkar, S.K. Das answered a Presidential reference to hold that Article 285 envisaged immunity from direct taxes and not from indirect taxes such as sales tax." Taxable event in the case of duties of excise is the manufacture of goods and the duty is not directly on the goods but on the manufacture thereof", the bench observed The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd v. CTO AIR (1963) The 9-judge bench comprised Justices B Sinha, Das SK, Gajendragadkar, PB Sarkar, Wanchoo KN, Hidayatullah, KC DasGupta, JC Shah, Rajagopala Ayyangar. The bench interpreted the word 'citizen' in a broader perspective and held that the State Trading Corporation although a legal person was not a citizen and can act only through natural persons. It was also observed that certain fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution for protection of "person" (such as the right to equality under Article 14) are also available to a company. Section 2(f) of Citizenship Act, 1995 expressly excludes a company or association or body of individuals from citizenship." Even if the State Trading Corporation be regarded as a department or organ of the Government of India, it will, if it be a citizen competent to enforce fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution against the State as defined in Art. 12 of the Constitution." Superintendent And Remembrancer Of Legal Affairs West Bengal Vs. Corporation Of Calcutta (1966) The 9-judge bench included K. Subbarao, K N Wanchoo, Shah JC, S M Sikri, Bachawat RS, Ramaswami, Shelat JM, Bhargava, Vishishtha Vaidyalingam. The bench considered whether the State of West Bengal, when it was carrying on a trade, as owner and occupier of the market at Calcutta, without obtaining the license was bound by the Calcutta Municipality Act or by necessary implication was exempted to obtain the license. The court held that an enactment applies to citizens as well as to the State unless it expressly or by necessary implication exempts the State from its operation, steers clear of all the anomalies and is consistent with the philosophy of equality enshrined in the Constitution." The State cannot claim the exemption to obtain a license on the ground that the Calcutta Municipal Act does not expressly or by necessary implication to make it binding on the State." Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors. v. State of Maharastra (1966) The 9-judge bench comprised Gajendragadkar, AK Sarkar, KN Wanchoo, Hidayatullah, JC Shah, Mudholkar, Sikri, SM Bhachawat, V Ramaswami. The majority held that a judicial order passed by a court cannot be challenged as infringing fundamental rights. The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat (1974) The 9-judge bench comprised Ray, A.N., Reddy, P.J. & Palekar, D.G., Khanna, Hans Raj Mathew, K.K., Beg, M. H. Dwivedi, S.N., Chandrachud, Y.V. & Alagiriswami, A. The court interpreted the contours of rights of minority educational institutions under Article 30."The rights conferred on the religious and linguistic minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice is an absolute right." Indira Sawhney Etc. Etc v. Union of India & Ors. ( "Mandal Commission Case" 1992) The 9-judge bench included M.H. Kania, C.J., M.N. Venkatachaliah, S.R. Pandian, T.K. Thommen, A.M. Ahmadi, Kuldip Singh, P.B. Sawant, R.M. Sahai B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ. The bench by 6:3 majority upheld 27% SEBC reservation in government jobs, with the exclusion of 'creamy layer'." While reserving posts for backward classes, the departments should make a condition precedent that every candidate must disclose the annual income of the parents beyond which one could not be considered to be backward. What should be that limit can be determined by the appropriate State. Income apart provision should be made that wards of those backward classes of persons who have achieved a particular status in society either political or social or economic or if their parents are in higher services then such individuals should be precluded to avoid monopolization of the services reserved for backward classes by a few....

15 Nine-Judge Bench Decisions In Supreme Court's History

Arabhi Anandan

Tags