It has been an adventure.

If a Judgment is pronounced by a Bench of Seven Judges, with Four Judges constituting Majority, Majority Judgement will constitute a binding Judgment by a Bench of Seven Judges and not a Bench of Four Judges. This position of law has been clarified and settled by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd. v. NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 975.

Where various Judges discuss same question of law albeit differently, Justice Ravindra Bhat in Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 8 SCC 1 relied on Rajnarain Singh v. Patna Administration Committee, (1954) 2 SCC 82 to hold, to cull out Majority in such cases Court must attempt to ascertain ‘greatest common measure’ of agreement.

In absence of disagreement by a Majority (either express or implied), nothing precludes subsequent Benches of this Court from relying on observations made in a concurring opinion (on behalf of Minority of Judges) which are not discussed by other Judges at all. It is assumed in such cases, all Judges on Bench have read one another, and did not deem it necessary to either state their express disagreement with the opinion or lay down a different understanding of the proposition of law (implied disagreement). See, Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji v. Union of India, (2019) 20 SCC 705. The fact, observations of a concurring opinion were not disagreed with or even discussed is sufficient for a subsequent Bench to rely on same if they choose to do so. In such cases, Court, though not bound, may choose to rely on it.

Majority in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy, (1977) 4 SCC 471 ‘indicated an express disagreement’/ ‘expressly distanced itself’ from observations of Justice Krishna Iyer. In such a situation, Bench of Five judges in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., (1983) 1 SCC 147 was bound by Majority in Ranganatha Reddy rendered by a bench of Seven Judges. Court in Sanjeev Coke erred in relying on observations of Justice Krishna Iyer in Ranganatha Reddy. The same error committed in Sanjeev Coke has been carried forward in subsequent decisions of this Court ever since.

– Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra, [Civil Appeal No. 1012 of 2022].

_____

Sanjeev Coke fell in error? Were future decisions of this Court wrong in following Sanjeev Coke? “We must not be understood to agree with all he has said in his Judgment in this regard” is not exactly a disagreement. Five Judges in Sanjeev Coke did not go against law laid down by Majority Judges in Ranganatha Reddy but only adopted logic of Three Judges in Ranganatha Reddy on which Majority of Four Judges in Ranganatha Reddy were silent. In my opinion, it did not break any judicial discipline.

The logic would be, opinion of Minority on a point where Majority is silent can be followed by High Courts. But, in Supreme Court it will have only persuasive value. See, KT Moopli Nair v. State of Kerala, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 7.

Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy in Ranganatha Reddy and Sanjeev Coke respectively has stood us in good stead and has lost none of its relevance or jurisprudential value.  

– Hon’ble Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra, [Civil Appeal No. 1012 of 2022].