Changing 'Rules Of Game', Arbitrator Appointment By Ineligible Person, Scope Of LMV License : Matters Before New Constitution Bench Of Supreme Court

The Bench will hear the following cases:

1. Tej Prakash Pathak and ors v. Rajasthan High Court and ors

The issue in this matter is whether the "rules of the game" can be changed after the selection process for posts has begun.

The issue was referred to the Constitution Bench by a 3-judge bench in the case Tej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and others (2013) 4 SCC 540. In Tej Prakash, the bench doubted the correctness of an earlier decision K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2008) 3 SCC 512, where it was held that the selection criteria cannot be changed midway during the process as "it would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible". The Manjusree case held as invalid a subsequent introduction of cut-off for the interview marks, which was not originally stipulated in the notification.

In Tej Prakash, the three-bench judge doubted whether the prohibition against changing the rules of the game could be held as absolute and non-negotiable.

In September last year, a 5-judge bench led by Justice Indira Banerjee had started hearing the matter. However, the bench was later dissolved in view of the retirements of Justices Banerjee and Hemant Gupta.

2. Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company and JSW Steel Limited v. South Western Railway & Anr

The issue involved in this matter is whether a person, who is ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator, can appoint an arbitrator.

In JSW Steel Limited v. South Western Railway & Anr, a 3-judge bench led by the then CJI UU Lalit noted that the view taken by a two-judge bench in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company was doubted by a 3-judge bench led by Justice Nariman in January 2021 in the case Union of India vs Tantia Constructions.

Taking note of this, the bench in JSW Steel also referred the matter to a three judge bench, observing, "Since the issue has been re-occurring, we may observe that it would be in the fitness of things that the question is resolved at an early date".

3. M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co Ltd v. Rambha Devi & Ors

The issue in this case is :

"Whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of “light motor vehicle”, could on the strength of that licence, be entitled to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kg?"

 A 3-judge Bench comprising Justice UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha, in March 2022, doubted the correctness of the decision given by a coordinate bench in the case Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663.

In Mukund Dewangan, a 3-judge Bench had held that a person holding a driving licence in respect of "light motor vehicle", could on the strength of that licence, be entitled to drive a "transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class" having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs. A bench comprising Justice Amitava Roy, Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul held in Mukund Dewangan that a separate endorsement in the LMV driving licence is not required to drive a transport vehicle having unladen weight below 7500 kilograms