5 Nine-Judge Bench Matters Pending Before Supreme Court; Oldest One Pending Since 2002

As per the 'statistics about matters pending in Supreme Court' published last month, there are 5 Nine Judges Bench Matters pending before the Supreme Court.These cases pertains to interpretations of : (1) 'material resources' in Article 39(b) of Constitution (2) Section 18-G of Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, (3) 'Industries' in Industrial Disputes Act (4) Royalties on mineral rights. (5) The questions on religious practices referred in Sabarimala review.Property Owners' Association vs. State of Maharashtra This case involves interpretation of Article 39(b) of the Constitution which speaks of the distribution for the public good of the ownership and control of the material resources of the community. The reference was made in the year 2002 since the seven judges bench observed that they have 'some difficulty in sharing the broad view that material resources of the community under Article 39(b) covers what is privately owned.'In State Of Karnataka vs Ranganatha Reddy AIR 1978 SC 215, Justice Krishna Iyer, speaking for himself and two other judges, opined that 'material resources' of the community covered all resources, natural and man-made, publicly and privately owned. The other judgment in the said case, delivered by Untwalia, J., on behalf of himself and three other Judges, did not consider it necessary to express any opinion with regard to Article 39(b), but clarified that they did not subscribe to the view taken by Krishna Iyer J. This view taken by Krishna Iyer, J. was later affirmed by a Constitution Bench in the case of Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. AIR 1983 SC 239,. Later nine judge bench in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India (1997 (5) SCC 536) observed that "the material resources of the community are not confined to public resources but include all resources, natural and man-made, public and private owned is repeatedly affirmed by this Court".This case was last listed in chambers in May 2017 to allow an intervention application.State Of U.P. vs M/S Lalta Prasad Vaish [(2007) 13 SCC 463]This case is about the States' power to regulate industrial alcohol as a product of the Scheduled industry under Entry 33 of List III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. This reference was made in the year 2007 after the five judges Constitution bench observed that the view taken in Synthetics Chemicals Limited & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh requires reconsideration. The bench observed that if the decision in the Synthetics and Chemicals case (supra) with regard to the interpretation of Section 18-G of the 1951 Act is allowed to stand, it would render the provisions of Entry 33 of List III nugatory or otiose. The following questions were referred:Does Section 2 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, have any impact on the field covered by Section 18-G of the said Act or Entry 33 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution? Does Section 18G of the aforesaid Act fall under Entry 52 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, or is it covered by Entry 33 of List III thereof? In the absence of any notified order by the Central Government under Section 18-G of the above Act, is the power of the State to legislate in respect of matters enumerated in Entry 33 of List III ousted? Does the mere enactment of Section 18-G of the above Act, give rise to a presumption that it was the intention of the Central Government to cover the entire field in respect of Entry 33 of List III so as to oust the States' competence to legislate in respect of matters relating thereto? Does the mere presence of Section 18-G of the above Act, oust the State's power to legislate in regard to matters falling under Entry 33(a) of List III ?; Does the interpretation given in Synthetics and Chemicals Case (1990) 1 SCC P 109, in respect of Section 18-G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, correctly state the law regarding the States' power to regulate industrial alcohol as a product of the Scheduled industry under Entry 33 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution in view of clause (a) thereof ?The seven judge bench, in the year 2010, referred the matter to a nine judge bench. Last month, while granting leave in an SLP which raised similar issues, the court tagged it with this case.State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh [(2005) 5 SCC 1]This case involves interpretation of the definition of "industry" for the purposes of interpretation of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act (IDA).In 2005, a five judges constitution bench had referred the case to a seven judge bench observing that the judgment by Justice Krishna Iyer in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v A.Rajappa case, requires reconsideration. In the said judgment, expansive meaning was given to the term 'industry' to cover most establishments that involved employer-employee relationship, irrespective of the objectives of the...

5 Nine-Judge Bench Matters Pending Before Supreme Court; Oldest One Pending Since 2002

Ashok Kini

Tags