Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India refers to a special bench consisting of five or more judges convened to decide cases involving substantial questions of law concerning the interpretation of the Constitution of India. Such benches are constituted under Article 145(3) of the Constitution and play a vital role in shaping constitutional jurisprudence, clarifying ambiguities, and safeguarding the principles of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench is, therefore, one of the most significant institutional mechanisms for upholding constitutional supremacy and ensuring consistency in judicial interpretation.

Constitutional Provision and Legal Basis

The legal foundation for the Constitution Bench is found in Article 145(3) of the Indian Constitution, which states:

“The minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any reference under Article 143 shall be five.”

This provision makes it mandatory for the Supreme Court to constitute a bench of at least five judges whenever a case raises a constitutional question of considerable significance or involves the interpretation of constitutional provisions. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) has the authority to constitute such benches and allocate matters for adjudication.

Purpose and Significance

The primary purpose of constituting a Constitution Bench is to ensure authoritative interpretation of the Constitution and maintain coherence in constitutional law. Some of the major objectives include:

• Resolving constitutional ambiguities: To interpret the provisions of the Constitution when different benches or courts have expressed conflicting opinions.
• Deciding substantial questions of law: To address legal questions that have far-reaching consequences for governance, fundamental rights, or the separation of powers.
• Upholding constitutional supremacy: To ensure that all laws, executive actions, and judicial interpretations remain consistent with constitutional principles.
• Maintaining judicial consistency: To provide binding precedents that lower benches and future cases must follow.

Composition and Functioning

• Size of the Bench: A Constitution Bench must comprise not fewer than five judges, but the number can be increased depending on the importance of the matter. In exceptional cases, seven, nine, eleven, or even thirteen judges have sat together to decide issues of national importance.
• Headed by the Chief Justice of India: The CJI generally presides over Constitution Benches, though another senior judge may do so if directed.
• Ad hoc constitution: The bench is not a permanent body; it is constituted as and when necessary to address constitutional questions.
• Decision-making: The verdict is determined by majority opinion, though dissenting judgments are also recorded and often play a crucial role in the evolution of constitutional law.

Types of Cases Referred to a Constitution Bench

Constitution Benches are convened under various circumstances, including:

1. Interpretation of the Constitution:
   • When the meaning, scope, or validity of a constitutional provision is in question.
   • Example: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), which defined the Basic Structure Doctrine.
2. Conflict between judicial precedents:
   • When smaller benches of the Supreme Court deliver conflicting judgments on the same constitutional issue, the matter is referred to a larger bench for final resolution.
3. Presidential Reference (Article 143):
   • When the President of India seeks the Court’s advisory opinion on questions of constitutional or public importance.
4. Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:
   • Cases involving conflicts or interpretation between Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy).
5. Federal and Legislative Disputes:
   • Disputes involving the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States under the Seventh Schedule.

Landmark Constitution Bench Judgments

Over the years, Constitution Benches have delivered some of the most historic and transformative judgments in Indian constitutional history.

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): A 13-judge bench ruled that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is wide but not unlimited, giving birth to the Basic Structure Doctrine.
• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): Upheld the supremacy of the rule of law and the principle that free and fair elections are part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): Reaffirmed the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles as part of the basic structure.
• S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Clarified the scope of Article 356 and established judicial review over the imposition of President’s Rule in states.
• I. R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): Held that even laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): A five-judge bench decriminalised homosexuality by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, upholding equality and dignity.
• Ayodhya Case (2019): A five-judge bench delivered the landmark verdict on the Ram Janmabhoomi–Babri Masjid dispute, balancing religious rights with constitutional principles.

Judicial Importance and Precedential Value

Decisions delivered by Constitution Benches carry exceptional precedential authority. According to the doctrine of stare decisis, smaller benches of the Supreme Court are bound by the rulings of larger benches. If a smaller bench disagrees with an earlier decision, it must refer the matter to a larger bench rather than overruling it. This hierarchy ensures consistency and stability in constitutional law.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court often constitutes a larger bench to reconsider earlier rulings when legal principles evolve or social and political contexts change. For instance, a five-judge bench decision may later be reviewed by a seven-judge bench to ensure continued relevance and coherence.

Distinction from Regular Benches

Contemporary Relevance

In recent years, Constitution Benches have gained renewed importance due to the rise of complex constitutional issues related to:

• Federalism and state autonomy.
• Judicial appointments and separation of powers.
• Electoral reforms and disqualification of legislators.
• Fundamental rights in the context of privacy, digital technology, and freedom of expression.

The Supreme Court has increasingly relied on Constitution Benches to provide clarity on constitutional questions that affect national governance and individual liberties.