Supreme Court Constitution Bench Judgments Of 2022

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India (as he then was) Justice UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment. While Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala upheld the 103rd Constitution Amendment, Justice S Ravindra Bhat wrote a dissenting judgment to strike it down. Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit concurred with the minority view of Justice Bhat.

Case Title: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India with 32 connected matters | W.P.(C)NO.55/2019 and connected issues

2. Direct evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe is not necessary to convict a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act

The Constitution bench comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer, B. R. Gavai, A. S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B. V. Nagarathna held that direct evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe is not necessary to convict a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that such fact can be proved through circumstantial evidence. Even if the direct evidence of the complainant is not available, owing to death or other reasons, or the complainant turning a hostile witness, there can be conviction of the public servant under the PC Act, if the demand for illegal gratification is proved through inferential evidence based on circumstances. Presumption of fact with regard to demand or acceptance may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when foundational facts have been proved.

Case Title: Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD) |Criminal Appeal No(s). 1669/2009

3. A judgment delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the number of judges constituting the majority

The Constitution bench comprising of Justices Indira Banerjee, Hemant Gupta, Surya Kant, M.M. Sundresh and Sudhanshu Dhulia held that a judgment delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the number of judges constituting the majority. In view of Article 145(5) of the Constitution of India concurrence of a majority of the judges at the hearing will be considered as a judgment or opinion of the Court. It is settled that the majority decision of a Bench of larger strength would prevail over the decision of a Bench of lesser strength, irrespective of the number of Judges constituting the majority.

Case Title: M/S Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Lts. vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

4. Section 319 CrPC Power has to be exercised before pronouncement of sentence in case of conviction. 

The Constitution Bench comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna held that the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. The judgment also held that the trial court has the power to summon additional accused when the trial is proceeded in respect of the absconding accused after securing his presence, subject to the evidence recorded in the split up (bifurcated) trial pointing to the involvement of the accused sought to be summoned. But the evidence recorded in the main concluded trial cannot be the basis of the summoning order if such power has not been exercised in the main trial till its conclusion. Power has to be exercised before the conclusion of the trial, which means before the pronouncement of the judgment.

Case Title: Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab Crl A. No. 885/2019