Khushi Bajpai
Published on: September 19, 2022 at 20:56 IST
The Supreme Court‘s Constitutional Bench decided on Monday that a decision made by a larger bench shall be upheld regardless of the number of Justices making up the majority.
As an example, a 4:3 majority verdict from a 7-judge bench will triumph over one from a 5-judge bench that was unanimous.
This decision was made by a five-judge panel that included Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia, Hemant Gupta, Surya Kant, M.M. Sundresh, and Indira Banerjee in response to the second issue in the case of Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
The bench emphasized that, per Article 145(5), the decision of the majority of judges counts as the court’s judgment.
It further mentioned that Justice Nageswara Rao’s decision in the Dr. Jayshree Patil case (Mathura) addressed the same issue.
“If a unanimous 5-judge bench division is overruled by a 7-judge bench with four learned judges speaking for the majority and three learned judges for the majority, can it be said that the 5-judge bench has been overruled?” asked a 2-judge panel made up of Justices RF Nariman and Sanjay Kishan Kaul in 2017.
It further added, “Because they happen to speak for a 7-judge bench, it is obvious that, under the current practice, the opinion of four experienced judges who represent the majority on a 7-judge bench will take precedence over a unanimous decision from a 5-judge bench.”
“Is it time to lift the legal curtain and declare that a decision made by five learned judges cannot be reversed by a decision made by one or more other judges?”
The primary question at hand in the case is whether, without amending the exemption provision or notification issued under a specific power, a general notification prescribing the rate of tax under various provisions relating to the determination of tax liability under the act can be considered to have withdrawn the exemption merely because of the exemption provision and charging provision.