Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Advocates
  • K.S Bhati, Advocate, for the Petitioner/Appellant;
  • Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate (Shailendra Sharma, Ms Anil Katiyar and Arvind Kr. Sharma, Advocates) for the Respondent;
  • Jagdev Singh Manhas, Advocate, for the Applicant in Impleadment Application.
Judges
  • Justice C.K. Thakker
  • Justice R.C. Lahoti
  • Justice G.P. Mathur
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Advocates
  • K.S Bhati, Advocate, for the Petitioner/Appellant;
  • Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate (Shailendra Sharma, Ms Anil Katiyar and Arvind Kr. Sharma, Advocates) for the Respondent;
  • Jagdev Singh Manhas, Advocate, for the Applicant in Impleadment Application.
Judges
  • Justice C.K. Thakker
  • Justice R.C. Lahoti
  • Justice G.P. Mathur
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This order arises from a reference made by a Bench of two Judges of the Supreme Court expressing doubts about the correctness of the view in Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 42 (a three-Judge Bench decision). Applying the Constitution Bench approach in Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik (2002) 1 SCC 1, the Court directs that the matter be heard first by a three-Judge Bench. During the pendency of the writ petition, it was stated at the Bar that the Government of India introduced the “Ex-Servicemen Health Contributory Scheme,” which partly addresses grievances raised by the petitioner and intervenor.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether, in light of doubts expressed by a two-Judge Bench about the correctness of a three-Judge Bench decision, the matter must first be placed before a three-Judge Bench.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 42 The view whose correctness was doubted by the referring two-Judge Bench. Identified as the three-Judge Bench decision under doubt, necessitating appropriate bench placement for reconsideration.
Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik (2002) 1 SCC 1 Constitution Bench view on the procedure when a smaller bench doubts the correctness of a larger bench decision (matter to be heard first by a three-Judge Bench). Relied upon to direct that the present matter be set down for hearing before a three-Judge Bench.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court notes that a two-Judge Bench has expressed doubts about the correctness of a prior three-Judge Bench ruling. Following the Constitution Bench guidance in Pradip Chandra Parija, the Court holds that such a matter must first be placed before a three-Judge Bench. Procedurally, the Court also manages the record and future assistance: it allows impleadment (IA No. 1) in a limited manner, directing the intervenor to address only points not already covered by the petitioner; it directs parties to file concise synopses (facts, statutory references, and authorities) within three weeks; and it records submissions that a governmental health scheme introduced during pendency partly addresses grievances, directing the respondent’s senior counsel to place the scheme on record within four weeks and permitting representations by the petitioner and intervenor seeking modification of the scheme.

Holding and Implications

DIRECTED TO BE LISTED BEFORE A THREE-JUDGE BENCH and IMPLEADMENT (IA NO. 1) ALLOWED WITH LIMITATIONS.

The matter is set down for hearing before a three-Judge Bench and listed after eight weeks. The intervenor gains limited participation rights. The parties must file brief synopses within three weeks, the respondent is to place the “Ex-Servicemen Health Contributory Scheme” on record within four weeks, and the petitioner/intervenor may make representations to the Central Government seeking suitable modification of the scheme. The order is procedural and does not state any broader implications or the laying down of new precedent.

Show full summary ...

    Confederation Of Ex-Servicemen Assns. Petitioner/ v. Union Of India .

    Order

    1. The reference order is by a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court expressing doubts about the correctness of the view taken in Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 42 which is a decision by a Bench of three learned Judges. According to the view taken by the Constitution Bench in Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik (2002) 1 SCC 1 the matter shall have to be heard first by a Bench of three Judges.

    2. Let this matter be set down for hearing before a Bench of three Judges.

    3. IA No. 1 seeking impleadment is allowed limited to the extent that the intervenor shall have the liberty of addressing the Court on such points as are not already covered by the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

    4. The parties shall file a brief synopsis of submissions setting out (i) brief relevant facts; (ii) the relevant statutory references; and (iii) list of the authorities relied on, within a period of three weeks.

    5. It is pointed out at the Bar on behalf of the petitioner and the intervenor that during the pendency of this writ petition the Government of India has introduced a scheme known as “Ex-Servicemen Health Contributory Scheme” which partly takes care of the grievances raised by the petitioner and the intervenor. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent proposes to file the Scheme on the record of the Court within four weeks. In the meantime, the petitioner and the intervenor may also make representations to the Central Government, under copy to the respondent's counsel, for considering their demands and suitably modifying the Scheme in the light of the representations made.

    6. List for hearing after eight weeks.

    Court Masters

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Confederation Of Ex-Servicemen Assns. Petitioner/ v. Union Of India .
    (Jul 20, 2004)