Union of India v. Raghubir Singh

Facts

Land of the respondents was acquired under a notification of 1959; the Collector's award was made in 1963 and the reference court enhanced compensation in 1968. While their appeal was pending in the Delhi High Court, the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 raised solatium from 15 to 30 per cent, and Section 30(2) extended the higher rate to certain earlier cases. In December 1984 the High Court awarded solatium at 30 per cent. The Union appealed. Two Judges of the Supreme Court, noting a conflict between a two-Judge decision (Kamalajammanniavaru) and a three-Judge decision (Bhag Singh) on Section 30(2), referred the question to five Judges. The respondents objected that a two-Judge Bench could not doubt a three-Judge Bench and refer the matter.

Questions before the Court

1. Is the law declared by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court binding on a later Division Bench of the same or a smaller number of Judges, and was the reference to a larger Bench valid?
2. In what circumstances should the Supreme Court depart from its own earlier decisions?
3. Does Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 give 30 per cent solatium in all proceedings pending on 30 April 1982, or only for awards made between 30 April 1982 and 24 September 1984?

What the Court held

• The Supreme Court is not bound by its own previous decisions; the question is when, within what limits and how it should overturn them. Certainty and consistency in the law declared under Article 141 must be weighed against the need to adapt the law to a changed social context.
• A pronouncement of law by a Division Bench of the Court binds a Division Bench of the same or a smaller number of Judges; it need not be a decision of the Full Court or a Constitution Bench. In future, decisions should be rendered by Benches of at least three Judges unless that is not conveniently possible.
• Given the nature of the questions, the two-Judge Bench was justified in referring the matter to a larger Bench, and the preliminary objection to the reference was overruled.
• Section 30(2) gives the enhanced solatium only where the award of the Collector or the Court was made between 30 April 1982 and 24 September 1984, and in appeals to the High Court or Supreme Court against such awards, whenever those appeals are decided. The words 'any such award' limit the appeals covered.
• The law stated in State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh and Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh was overruled and the interpretation in K. Kamalajammanniavaru was preferred. The cases were sent to a three-Judge Bench on the other points.

Why it matters

The judgment states the rule of binding precedent within the Supreme Court: a ruling of a Bench binds later Benches of equal or smaller strength, and a smaller Bench that doubts it should seek a reference to a larger Bench. It reviews English, Australian and American practice and Indian cases on when the Court may overrule itself, and it settles the scope of the retrospective benefit of enhanced solatium under the 1984 amendment to the Land Acquisition Act.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

Provisions interpreted

• Article 141, Constitution
• Section 30(2), Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984
• Section 23(2), Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Related judgments

• Follows Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1955)“observed that it was not bound by its earlier judgments and possessed the freedom to overrule its judgments when it thought fit to do so to keep pace with the needs of changing times” (page 9)
• Followed in Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd. (2014)

Case and bench

Parties

Union of India & Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by LRs. etc.

Case

Civil Appeal Nos. 2839-40 of 1989 etc.

Decided

16 May 1989

Bench

Pathak, R.S. (CJ), Venkataramiah, E.S., Mukharji, Sabyasachi, Misra, Rangnath, Natrajan, S.

Opinions

Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by Pathak, CJ.