Supreme Court of India

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusJAI BIR SINGH

Citation: 2017 INSC 1250
Decided: 2 January 2017
Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Bench: T S THAKURMADAN B LOKURS A BOBDEADARSH KUMAR GOELUDAY UMESH LALITD Y CHANDRACHUDL NAGESWARA RAO

Holding

The appeals are to be placed before a nine‑Judge Bench for determination of the raised questions.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard extensive arguments in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh (Civil Appeal No. 897 of 2002). The Court examined the correctness of the view expressed in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213, which had been questioned in a prior reference order. Recognising the serious and wide‑ranging implications of the issue, the Court noted that substantial doubts remained about the earlier decision. Consequently, the Court decided that the matter required consideration by a larger bench. It ordered that the appeals be placed before a nine‑Judge Bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice. The papers were directed to be forwarded for constitution of the larger bench.

Issues considered

Whether the view taken in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213 is correct
Whether the appeals should be heard by a nine‑Judge Bench of the Supreme Court

Subjects

larger benchnine‑Judge Benchreference orderBangalore Water Supply casecivil appealSupreme Court of India

Judgment

                          [2017] 1 S.C.R. 83


                    STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                                 A
                                   v.
                           JAI Bm. SINGH
                     (Civil Appeal No.897 of2002)
                      JANUARY 02, 2017                                     B
 (T. S. THAKL'R, C.J.I., MADAN B. LOKUR, S.A. BOBD.J<~,
    ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, UDAY UMESH LALIT,
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND L. NAGF.SWARA RAO, J.J.}
       Reference to larger bench - Reference order by a Five-Judges
Bench pursuant to which matter placed before Seven-Judges Bench            c
- In view of serious all{/ ·wide ranging implications of the issue
invoh,ed as al.m the fact that serio11s doubts have been e>.]Jressed
in the reference order abouJ the correctnes.o; of the view in Banga lore
Water Supply and Sewerage Supply & Sewerage Board etc. v. A.
Rajappa and Ors. etc. (1978) 2 SCC 213, mu11er referred to Nine-           D
Judges Bench.
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 897 of
2002.
        From the Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2001 ofthe High Court
ofJudicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition ~o. 32&2 of2001.    E
                                    WITH
        C.A. Nos. 1276, 1278, 1279, 6114, 8597 of200 l
     . C.A. Nos. 2409, 2~06, 4569, 5101,6108,6471 of2002
        SLP (C) No.20982 of2002·
        C.A. No. 7994 of2004
        SLP (C) Nos.l\291, 14085. 14127 of2004
        C.A.No.812 of2005
        SLP (C) No. 4l39.of2005
        C. A. Nos.1273, 1274, 3647, 4646 of2007                            G
        SLP (C) No. 1630 I of 2007
        C. A. Nos. 296, 1311-1312 of2008
        SLP (C) Nos.31 07,4327, 4328,4329, 16276, 17224 of2008
                                                                           H
                                   83
84            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] I S.C.R.


A          SLP (C) No.l112 of2009
           SLP (C) ... CC No.7990 of2009
           C.A. "\Jos. 3920, 5681 of20 I0
           C.A.Nos. 3119, 7757 of20 II
           C.A. ~o.ll31 of20 12
B
           C.i\. Nos.4505-4506, 4507-4508 of20 13
           SLP (C) l'\o.12679-12682 of20 14
           C.A. No. 5.519 of20l2
                     AND WITH
C          SI.,P (C) No.l857 of20 16.
           Ms.Pinky Anand, ASG, Dcvadatt Kamat, Purushindra Kaul'av,
    Nikhil Nayyar,AAGs., Sunil Gupta, Mrs. V.D. Makhija, Mrs. V. Mohana,
    Ms. Indira Jaising, Subramonitun Pmsad, C.U. Singh, Dinesh Dwivcdi,
    Silambannan, Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Advs. Vivek Vishnoi, M. R. Shamshad,
D . Aditya Samadar, D.N. GobL1rdhan, Vimla Sexcna, Rajesh Ranjan, Karan
    Seth, Joel, Shashank Dcwa•'· Ms. Somya Rathorc~ B. Krishna Prasad,
    D. S. Mahra, Ms. Vimla Sinha, Ms. Gunwant Dam, Ms. Movita, Ms.
    Akhila J., M.K. Maroria, Bhtlrat Sangal, Ms. Vidushi Garg, Ms. Ajitha
    Sharma, Ms. Vernika Tomar, Samar Vijay Singh, SaJtiay Kr. Vi sen, Kamal
    Mohan Gupta. C. D. Singh, \.1s. Sylona Mohapatra, Vidit Arora, Rahul
E Rajput. Saurabh Ajay Gupta. M. Yogcsh Kanna, Ms. Nilhya, Ms.
    Jltmumt ika Wah i, Ms. PLtia Singh, Ms. Aagam Kaur, V. N. Ragh upath y,
    Joseph Aristotle, Rajesh lnamdar, Javedur Rahman, Parikhit P. Angdi,
    Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Mukesh Verma,
    K. L.Janjani, Mishra Samabh, Ms. Anuradha M ishra, Ankit Kr. La I,
F Kuldip Singh, N. Sai Vi nod, Jagj it Singh Chhabra, Abhay Ncgdvi, Krishan
    Kumar, Joseph Aristotle S., Mrs. Priya Aristotle, Ms. K. Priyadarshini,
    Ms. Anitha Shcnoy, Pradcep Misra, Ms. Madhu Sikri, R. Chandrachud,
    Senthil J agadeesan, Jawahar Raja, Chinmay Kanojia, Gautam Bhatia.
    Pukhrambnm Ramesh Kumar. Uday Manaktala, Prcctcsh Kapur,
    Ardhen<.l'umauli Kumar Prasad, Manish Shankar Srivastava, Krishnam
G Misra, Yasharth Kant, Ms. TarunaArdhendumauli Prasad, Namit Saxena,
    Nirmal Kumar Ambastha. Amritesh Raj, Panshul Chandra, Jaydip Pati,
    S. Ravi :Shankar, Yamunah N., Ms. Sneha Bhatnagar, Gunjan, Ms. Jyoti
    Mendiratta, Mukesh Vermn. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Yash Pal Dhingra,
    Ms. Sangeeta Bhm1i, Krishanu Adhikary, Ms. Pr~rna Mehta, Dr. Krishan
    Singh Chauhan,Aseem Katoch,Ajit Kumar Ekka, Ravi Prakash, Chand
H
        STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. JAI DIR SINGH                                   85


Kira11, Ms. Charu Lata Chaudhary. Ashok Kumar Sharma. Vikalp                      A
Mudgal, Kshitij Mudgal, Ms. Nidhi, Vidya DharGaur. Ms. Shnlu Sharma,
Naresh Kumar, Dr. (Mrs.) Vi pin Gupta, Vishwajlt Singh, Dharat Sangal,
S. K. Verma, S. N. Bhat, R. C. Kaushik, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad,
E. C. Vidya Sagar, Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari,
Subhash Sharma, A. P. Mohanty, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Gautam
                                                                                  B
Narayan, K. Rajeev, M. K. Garg, Ms. Sheela Goel, Abhay Nagavi.
Krishan Kumar, Advs., with them for the appearing parties.
      The following Order of the Cou11 was del ivcred
                                  ORI>ER

       'f. S. THAKUR, C.J.I. I. We have heard learned counsel for                 c
the parties at considerable length. We have also been taken throHgh
relevant passages of the decision of this Collrt in JJaugalor.e Water
Supply & Sewarage Board e/c. 1-: A. Rqjuppa tmd Or.~. etc. ( 1978) 2
SCC 213 and the rete renee order passed by a Five-Judges Bench of
this Court pursuant to which these matters have been placed bclorc us.            D
Having given our anxious consideration to the contentions ul'gcd at the
bar and the serious and wide ranging imp Iicat ions of the issue that fall
for determination as also the tact that serious doubb have been cx.prcss~d
in the rdercncc order about the l:Orrectness of the view taken in
Bangalore Water Supp~v ~· ca.'ie (supra), \vc are of the opinion that
these appeals need to be placed before a Bench comprising Nine-Judges             E
to be constituted by the Chief Just ice.
      2. We order accordingly. The papers be now placed before the
ChiefJustice for constituting an appropriate Nine-J udgcs Bench lo answer
the questions raised in the reference order dated 5111 May. 2005 passed
by the Five-Judges Bench in State of U.P " Jai Bir Singlt (2005} 5                F
sec 1.
Divya Pandey                                Mattt:r rclcrcrrcd to larger bench.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "larger bench"Sign in to search