Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another vs Union of India
- Neutral2015 INSC 285
- SCR[2015] 13 SCR 1
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of a statute is filed before the statute has come into force and before there is a concrete cause of action, the petition is not rendered premature or non-justiciable merely by the absence of enforcement; if the petition involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, the matter must be referred to a larger Bench under Article 145(3) of the Constitution to determine those constitutional questions, and the appropriate forum for considering interim relief is that larger Bench rather than the referring Bench.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. In this group of petitions, validity of the Constitution (Ninety- Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') has been challenged. The challenge is on the ground that by virtue of the aforestated amendment and enactment of the Act, basic structure of the Constitution of India has been altered and therefore, they should be set aside.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the parties appearing in-person at length.
3. It has been mainly submitted for the petitioners that all these petitions should be referred to a Bench of Five Judges as per the provisions of Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India for the reason that substantial questions of law with regard to interpretation of the Constitution of India are involved in these petitions. It has been further submitted that till all these petitions are finally disposed of, by way of an interim relief it should be directed that the Act should not be brought into force and the present system with regard to appointment of Judges should be continued.
4. Sum and substance of the submissions of the counsel opposing the petition is that all these petitions are premature for the reason that the Act has not come into force till today and till the Act comes into force, cause of action can not be said to have arisen. In the circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the petitions should be rejected.
5. The learned counsel as well as parties in-person have relied upon several judgments to substantiate their cases.
6. Looking at the facts of the case, we are of the view that these petitions involve substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India and therefore, we direct the Registry to place all the matters of this group before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India so that they can be placed before a larger Bench for its consideration.
7. As we are not deciding the cases on merits, we do not think it appropriate to discuss the submissions made by the learned counsel and the parties in-person.
8. It would be open to the petitioners to make a prayer for interim relief before the larger bench as we do not think it appropriate to grant any interim relief at this stage.
.............................................J (ANIL R. DAVE)
.............................................J (J. CHELAMESWAR)
................................................J (MADAN B. LOKUR) NEW DELHI, APRIL 07, 2015.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free