PRADIP CHANDRA PATNAIK Vs. PRAMOD CHANDRA PATNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These matters come to be placed before this Bench of five Judges by reason of an order passed on 24th October, 1996 by a Bench of two learned Judges. The two learned Judges stated in that order that they had been taken through the judgment of this Court (delivered by a Bench of three learned Judges) in Nityananda Kar and Anr. etc. vs. State of Orissa and Anr., (1990) 2 Suppl. SCR 644 and that, "with utmost respect", they did "not agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached therein". The learned Judges set out four reasons why they disagreed with the said judgment. They then directed that these matters "be placed before a larger bench of five Judges of this Court. The Registry to place the papers before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders in this case."

(2.) The question is whether two learned Judges of this Court can disagree with a judgment of three learned Judges of this Court and whether, for that reason, they can refer the matter before them directly to a Bench of five Judges

(3.) We may point out, at the outset, that in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Mumbai Shramik Sangha, (2001) 4 SCC 448 a Bench of five Judges considered a somewhat similar question. Two learned Judges in that case doubted the correctness of the scope attributed to a certain provision in an earlier Constitution Bench judgment and, accordingly, referred the matter before them directly to a Constitution Bench. The Constitution Bench that then heard the matter took the view that the decision of a Constitution Bench binds a Bench of two learned Judges and that judicial discipline obliges them to follow it, regardless of their doubts about its correctness. At the most, the Bench of two learned Judges could have ordered that the matter be heard by a Bench of three learned Judges.