Unusual Bench!

 

By Kishore Kulkarni

In India, the composition of a bench can vary in terms of the number of judges, ranging from a single judge to the maximum strength of the court. The Indian judicial system recognizes different types of benches, including the Single Bench, Division Bench, Full Bench (consisting of 3 to 5 judges), and the Constitution Bench (comprising 5 or more judges). 

One notable instance in Indian legal history is the judgment delivered by a bench of 13 judges, which is widely recognized and celebrated. This particular bench is often regarded as the largest bench ever constituted in India. However, it is worth noting that there was another bench constituted that surpassed even the size of the Keshavananda Bharati bench, although this fact remains relatively unknown to the majority of people.

The situation originated from a minor local political matter that led to the summoning of two high court judges, who were subsequently tasked with forming a bench consisting of twenty-eight (28) judges. This incident exemplified the ongoing power struggle between the legislature and judiciary, a conflict that often goes unnoticed by the general public and even within legal circles.

The incident harks back to the 1960s in Uttar Pradesh, where a Socialist party worker and his associates circulated a pamphlet criticizing a congress MLA for alleged corruption. The worker and his colleagues were summoned to the Lucknow assembly to explain their actions. While the colleagues agreed to attend, the main individual failed to show up, citing financial constraints for his journey from Gorakhpur to Lucknow by train. Consequently, the Assembly opted to detain the Socialist party worker for failing to comply with the summons. 

After being apprehended, the party member was summoned to the assembly to address his misconduct. The speaker posed a series of inquiries to him. However, the party member not only refused to respond to the questions but also displayed disrespect by turning his back on the speaker and maintaining silence. This behavior was deemed derogatory towards both the assembly and the speaker. As the situation escalated, the Chief Minister of the state proposed a motion in the assembly for the arrest of the party member. The motion was approved by the House, leading to the party member being incarcerated and sentenced to seven days in jail.

Things get interesting here, Just before a day of release of the worker, a petition was filed in the Allahabad High Court for immediate release of the worker as he was arrested on illegitimate grounds. The assistant Government advocate failed to appear before the court. Upon his absence the court heard the argument of the petitioner (Socialist party worker) and ordered to be released on bail.

The order of release reached the speaker of  assembly. The Speaker, himself being an advocate and person well aware of laws, found the court's approach was contrary to separation of powers.

From here, A mere local political conflict becomes a war between the institutions 0f the state.

The Speaker was of the view that the courts order undermined the privileges of assembly to redress the issues of members within the assembly. Two days later, the house passed a resolution to put the worker back in jail. The speaker ordered ,all persons associated with this to be brought  in custody before the assembly, including two judges of the High Court to answer for their acts

The two High Court Judges were informed about this order, causing them to feel uncertain about the potential impact of their appearance on the Independence of Judiciary. Subsequently, the Judges filed a Writ Petition in the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the custody order issued by the assembly goes against Article 211 of the Constitution of India.

The petition was submitted, leading to the question of forming a bench, which arose due to concerns that regardless of the number of judges present, there was a possibility of them being issued arrest warrants to attend the assembly. In order to address this issue, all judges reached a unanimous decision to convene and adjudicate on the case, ensuring that if there was an order to appear, either all judges would comply or none at all. The Allahabad High Court established a bench comprising a total of Twenty Eight Judges (28) to preside over the case. 

During the hearing, the assembly decided to revoke the judges' arrest warrant, clarifying that their primary goal was to gather information from individuals directly involved in the matter.

The aforementioned case was presented for the presidential reference under Article 143, and the highest court in the country was tasked with addressing the raised issue. The Supreme Court ruled that when it comes to a conflict between the privileges of the state assembly and personal liberty, the latter takes precedence over the former. Furthermore, the court supported the decision of the High Court to establish a bench of twenty-eight judges, deeming it necessary due to the gravity of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the assembly did not have the authority to issue an arrest warrant against the judges of the court. While the assembly's intention was to request a proper explanation, it lacked the jurisdiction to take action.

The transformation from a pamphlet to a question of privilege and personal liberty signifies a significant escalation. What initially seemed like a minor matter has now evolved into a substantial power struggle between two Constitutional institutions. This case has established a significant and influential legal precedent.

Thank You for your time.

Kishore Kulkarni

BA LLB Student 

Instagram

LinkedIn