Summary
Deciding only a preliminary reference request in the Article 370 challenges, the Supreme Court found no conflict between Prem Nath Kaul and Sampat Prakash. The former concerned the Yuvaraj’s legislative competence and decisions before the State Constituent Assembly convened; it did not decide Article 370’s operation after that Assembly dissolved. Sampat Prakash was therefore not per incuriam. Reference to a larger Bench was declined, without considering the constitutional challenges on their merits.
Issues
- Whether Prem Nath Kaul and Sampat Prakash contained conflicting ratios requiring a larger Bench.
- Whether non-consideration of Prem Nath Kaul rendered Sampat Prakash per incuriam.
Provisions considered
- Article 370, historical text, Constitution of IndiaThe context of clause (2) and the questions actually decided in the earlier cases governed whether their ratios conflicted. (¶¶ 3, 38, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45)
Held
- Precedents must be read in their factual and decisional context. A coordinate Bench is bound by the applicable ratio; selective reading of observations cannot manufacture a conflict warranting reference. References must not be made casually. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 23, 25, 26, 42)
- Prem Nath Kaul concerned legislative competence in the period before the State Constitution. Its observations about the Constituent Assembly’s final decision were limited to the earlier State Government decisions addressed by Article 370(2). (¶¶ 38, 42, 43)
- Prem Nath Kaul did not decide continuation or cessation of Article 370 after dissolution of the State Constituent Assembly. Sampat Prakash addressed that question, so the two decisions did not conflict on their ratios. (¶¶ 40, 44, 45)
- The per incuriam exception concerns binding ratio and must be applied sparingly where coordinate decisions irreconcilably conflict. Mere non-reference to the earlier judgment did not establish that exception here. (¶¶ 28, 29, 31, 32, 46)
- The order resolved only the preliminary larger-Bench issue and expressed no view on the merits of the challenges to the 2019 Constitution Orders. (¶¶ 1, 2, 7, 47)
Result
Request to refer the petitions to a larger Bench declined on the questions considered. Constitutional challenges on the merits were not determined by this order.