Case Title: KANTARU RAJEEVARU V. INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR. ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MS. BHAKTI PASRIJA AND ORS.
The Supreme Court in a significant order stated that, in a review petition, it has the authority to submit legal concerns to a bigger bench.
The concerns questioning the maintainability of the reference in the Sabarimala Review Petitions were rejected by the nine-judge panel led by former CJI SA Bobde. In that instance, the bench had said that it would subsequently provide the justification for its decision.
The Court provided its justifications for concluding that there is no prohibition on submitting legal problems to a bigger bench for review in the judgement handed down.
One of the arguments made was that the restrictions in Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules from 2013 make the review petitions unmaintainable. Therefore, it was argued that the reference is flawed since the review request can be denied based on such restrictions.
The court stated that under Article 137 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court has the authority to examine any decision or order it has issued, subject to any regulations adopted under Article 145 or any laws passed by the Parliament. According to the court's interpretation of the rule, there is no restriction on the use of the court's authority in reviewing petitions filed against verdicts and orders in procedures other than civil or criminal actions.
Another argument was that a reference could not be made while a review petition was still ongoing but only after the review was granted. The bench disagreed with that and noted:
“It is permissible to refer to a bigger bench in any action, appeal, or ‘other procedure’. A regulated course of action for upholding a legal right is typically meant by the broad definition of the word ‘proceeding’, which is used in this sentence. It is a phrase that grants a court of law the greatest amount of discretion so that it can fairly decide the case's parties. There is no question that the current review petition fits under the definition of the term other process.”
The court further stated that unless it is clearly prohibited under any of the provisions in the Constitution, no subject is outside the purview of a higher court of record. This Court, a superior court of record, has jurisdiction over every issue in the absence of any specific provisions in the Constitution, and if there is any uncertainty, the court has the authority to decide its jurisdiction.
The bench cited Article 142 of the Indian Constitution and stated that it has the authority to issue whatever orders are required to fully administer justice in any case or subject that comes before it.
Another argument was made that the court shouldn't offer hypothetical answers or speculative views. The judge stated, in light of the reference Bench's belief that there is a conflict between the Court's decisions in Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Shri Lakshmindra Thritha Swaminar of Sri Shirur Mutt, Durgah Committee, Ajmer vs. Syed Hussain Ali & Ors. and Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India:-
"The reference of questions of law pertaining to the application of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India are of the utmost importance and require an authoritative pronouncement by a larger bench."
In context of proviso to Article 145(3), it was argued that a referral to a bigger bench can be made only in appeals and not in any other proceedings. The bench noted that since the current reference was made by a bench of five judges, the proviso to Article 145 (3) is not relevant. The proviso to Article 145 (3) deals with a circumstance wherein a reference has been made by a bench of fewer than five judges.