If the case issues a fabric authorized concern, it ought to be referred to a constitutional financial institution of 5 judges

If the case concerns a material legal issue, it should be referred to a five-judge constitutional bank drafted by Shatakshi Kakkar, a student at Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

JANHIT ABHIYAN V. UNION OF INDIA

INTRODUCTION:

The written petition submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the matter challenges the constitutional validity of the most recent amendment to the Indian Constitution, i.e. the 2019 Constitutional Law (one hundred and thirtyth amendment) through the Article 15 paragraphs 6 and 6 to be added Article 16 (6) stipulated that people from the economically weaker sector, as well as from the education and employment sectors, would be reserved.

PROBLEM:

The following issues arose in the above case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

  • Should the matter contested above be dealt with by a constitutional bank with five judges, since it contains an essential point of law?
  • Whether or not the Amendment Act violates basic structural theory?
  • Will the amending law exceed the limit of just 50% reservation, which has already been upheld in various Supreme Court rulings?

EVALUATION:

The petitioners’ claim has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Relying on Article 145 (3) of the Constitution of India and Regulation XXXVIII of the Rules of the Supreme Court of 2013, the Court ruled that the main issue of the following case concerns an essential legal issue and meets the requirements of the two aforementioned provisions and therefore it should be supported by one Constitutional Bank with five judges.
Since the case is an essential legal issue, it was advantageous for the bank in question not to decide on the other two facts, i.e. on the question of whether the new change violates the basic structure and only exceeds the established limits 50 % Reservation. It felt appropriate to move the suitcase to a larger bench and let the problem settle.
Therefore, the present bank transferred this written petition and another series of cases relating to the same subject to a constitutional bank of five judges in order to rightly resolve the case and the main issue.

CONCLUSION:

What is actually interpreted as an “essential legal issue” is nowhere specified in ink and paper, but rather defined by various judgments promulgated by the Supreme Court during the reporting period. Article 145 (3) of the Indian Constitution makes it clear that any case involving an essential legal issue should be judged by a constitutional bank of five judges. The Court also took into account the precedent of M. Nagaraj & Ors in the following case. V. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 212, in which it was held to consider “amendments to the equality provisions of the constitution,” should the matter be heard by a constitutional bank. Since the following amendment to amending the equality provisions of the constitution is in nature, the matter is best decided by a constitutional bank. Hence, the following judgment is logically and legally founded.

Comments are closed.