Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 2 SCC 673 reiterated, if a Bench of Lower Strength is ‘doubtful’ about correctness of a Judgment delivered by a Bench of Larger Strength, it cannot ‘disagree’ or ‘dissent’. It can invite Chief Justice of India’s attention and request, the matter be listed before a Bench of Greater Strength than which delivered the Judgment which has been ‘doubted’.

Doubting correctness of S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 662, without disagreeing with it, Two-Judge Bench in Anjuman-e-Rahmaniya v. District Inspector of Schools, W.P.(C) No. 54-57 of 1981 requested, matter may be placed before Chief Justice of India for being heard by a Bench of Seven Judges. This falls within permissible limits laid down in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community. Solicitor General has also stated, he is not pressing Union’s preliminary objection.

– Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal, [Civil Appeal No. 2286 of 2006].

With utmost respect at our command, we do not appreciate as to how a Two-Judge Bench could dictate its viewpoint to Chief Justice of India. Allowing such a practice would enable Benches of Lesser Strength, such as a Two-Judge Bench, to undermine decisions of Larger Benches, potentially even an Eleven-Judge Bench. We respectfully ‘disagree’ reference in Anjuman passes muster. It suffers from multiple illegalities, including judicial impropriety.

We respectfully ‘disagree’ Anjuman has merely ‘doubted’ and not ‘disagreed’ with Azeez Basha. It is difficult to ‘doubt’ a judicial opinion unless we ‘disagree’ with correctness of its contents and substance.

– Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant, Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal, [Civil Appeal No. 2286 of 2006].

I am reminded of Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court Owner Residents Association, (2023) 10 SCC 817: “judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes which are subject to vagaries of wind and weather”. Not only is Azeez Basha a judicial verdict more than half a century old, but it has a strong foundational basis and is anchored in robust legal reasoning. It has withstood, so to say, vagaries of wind and weather and stands tall as a pyramid in the desert.

Constitution Bench in Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India, (2018) ruled, “there cannot be any kind of command directing Chief Justice of India to constitute a particular Bench”. If “doubting correctness of Azeez Basha, without disagreeing with it” could permit Two-Judge Bench in Anjuman to request Chief Justice of India to place the case before a Seven-Judge Bench and such a course of action were held to be permissible within limits of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community, I am afraid, tomorrow, a Two-Judge Bench could well doubt Doctrine of Basic Structure and request Chief Justice of India to constitute a Fifteen-Judge Bench. In case of a doubt being expressed by a Two-Judge Bench in respect of a ratio laid down by a Five-Judge Bench, the case on a reference being made (with sufficient reasons) ought to be first placed before a Three-Judge Bench and not to a Five-Judge Bench or Seven-Judge Bench. Anjuman must be regarded as completely flawed.

– Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta, Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal, [Civil Appeal No. 2286 of 2006].