DR. SHAH FAESAL AND ORS. vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2020

CASE BRIEFING: DR. SHAH FAESAL AND ORS. vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2020

Case Title and Citation

DR. SHAH FAESAL AND ORS. vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR..

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1099 OF 2019 (with connected matters including W.P. (C) No. 1013/2019 and W.P. (C) No. 1368/2019).

Facts

The cases pertain to the constitutional challenge regarding two Constitution Orders (C.O. Nos. 272 and 273) issued by the President of India in exercise of powers under Article 370 of the Constitution. These Orders were issued following the imposition of President’s Rule in the State of Jammu and Kashmir on 20.12.2018, which was subsequently extended.

C.O. 272, issued on August 5, 2019, superseded the 1954 Order and declared that all provisions of the Constitution shall apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It modified Article 367 by equating “Government of the State” for the purposes of Article 370(1) with the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir (acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers) and required that in the proviso to Article 370(3), the expression “Constituent Assembly of the State” shall read “Legislative Assembly of the State”.

C.O. 273, issued on August 6, 2019, declared under Article 370(3) that all clauses of Article 370 shall cease to be operative.

Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of these orders. However, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners raised a preliminary contention that the matter needed to be referred to a larger Bench because there were alleged contrary opinions by two different Constitution Benches (Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir) regarding the interpretation of Article 370. This specific order is confined to the limited preliminary issue of whether the matter should be referred to a larger bench.

Issue(s)

I. Whether there is a requirement to refer the present matter to a larger Bench in view of the alleged contradictory views of this Court in Prem Nath Kaul case and Sampat Prakash case regarding the continuity and operation of Article 370 [28 (ii)]?

II. Whether the subsequent decision in Sampat Prakash case is per incuriam for not taking into consideration the earlier decision of the Court in Prem Nath Kaul case [28 (iii)]?

Rule of Law

1. Doctrine of Precedent (Stare Decisis): The doctrine of precedents and stare decisis are core values of the legal system, promoting certainty, stability, and continuity. The use of precedent is the indispensable bedrock upon which the Court renders justice.
2. Binding Precedent: The decisions rendered by a coordinate Bench are binding on subsequent Benches of equal or lesser strength.
3. Ratio Decidendi: It is only the principle laid down in the judgment (ratio decidendi) that is binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution. A case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and the judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved.
4. Per Incuriam Rule: This rule is an exception to the doctrine of judicial precedent. A decision is per incuriam if the court acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or of a court of coordinate jurisdiction that covered the case before it. The rule is strictly applicable only to the ratio decidendi and must be applied sparingly, only when there is an irreconcilable conflict in the opinions of two coordinate Benches.

Holding

1. The Court held that there is no conflict between the judgments in the Prem Nath Kaul case and the Sampat Prakash case.
2. The plea of the counsel to refer the present batch of petitions to a larger Bench on the ground of contradictory precedents is rejected.
3. The Sampat Prakash case is not per incuriam.

Reasoning

1. Judgments Must Be Read in Context: Judgments cannot be interpreted in a vacuum, separate from their facts and context. The Court must analyze the ratio decidendi based on the subject matter of the decision.
2. Prem Nath Kaul Context: That case dealt with the validity of a Jammu and Kashmir enactment passed during the interregnum period before the State’s Constitution was formulated. The observations stressing the importance of the Constituent Assembly’s “final decision” (Article 370(2)) must be read as being limited to decisions taken by the State Government prior to the convening of the Constituent Assembly. Crucially, the Prem Nath Kaul case did not discuss the continuation or cessation of Article 370 after the Constituent Assembly was dissolved.
3. Sampat Prakash Context: The Sampat Prakash case specifically addressed the contention that Article 370 automatically ceased to operate upon the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, and refuted it. The Court in Sampat Prakash reasoned that Article 370(3) provided the mechanism for cessation: the President could issue a notification only upon the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly. Since the Assembly made no such recommendation, but rather recommended the continued operation of Article 370 with modifications (C.O. 44), the Article continued to be operative.
4. No Contradiction/Per Incuriam: Since the Prem Nath Kaul case and the Sampat Prakash case dealt with different issues and circumstances, and the former did not decide the core issue of cessation addressed by the latter, there is no conflict between the precedents. Therefore, the subsequent decision in Sampat Prakash is not per incuriam.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court determined that the established legal principles regarding the doctrine of precedent did not mandate referring the matter to a larger Bench, as there was no irreconcilable conflict in the ratio decidendi of the prior five-judge bench decisions (Prem Nath Kaul and Sampat Prakash). The preliminary plea for reference was thus rejected.