Constitution of India – Art.370 – On August 5, 2019, two Constitution Orders were issued by the President, in exercise of power u/Art.370, which made the Constitution of India applicable to the State of Jammu & Kashmir in its entirety, like other States in India – Orders challenged – Contentions raised at the outset that the present matter needs to be referred to larger Bench as there are contrary opinions by two different Constitution Benches in Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported as [1959] Suppl. SCR 270 and Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported as [1970] SCR 365 on the interpretation of Art.370 and that Sampat Prakash is per incuriam as it did not consider Prem Nath Kaul – Present order confined to preliminary issue of reference – No issue considered on merits – Held: Decision rendered by a coordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Benches of equal or lesser strength – However, judgments cannot be interpreted in a vacuum, separate from their facts, context – In Prem Nath Kaul, Court had to determine the legislative competence of the Yuvaraj, in passing a particular enactment passed during the interregnum period, before the formulation of the Constitution of State of Jammu & Kashmir, but after coming into force of the Constitution of India – Observations made regarding the importance given to decision of the Constituent Assembly of the State of Jammu & Kashmir needs to be read in the light of these facts – It was indicated that the Constituent Assembly’s decision u/Art.370(2) was final – This finality has to be read as being limited to those decisions taken by the State Govt. u/Art.370 prior to the convening of the Constituent Assembly of the State, in line with the language of Art.370(2) – Prem Nath Kaul did not discuss the continuation/cessation of operation of Art.370 after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly of the State – This issue was not in question before the Court, unlike in Sampat Prakash case where the contention was specifically made and refuted by the Court – Rule of per incuriam being an exception to the doctrine of precedents is only applicable to the ratio of the judgment – There are no contrary observations made in Sampat Prakash case to that of Prem Nath Kaul – Sampat Prakash case is not per incuriam – No conflict between Prem Nath Kaul and Sampat Prakash – No reason to refer these petitions to a larger Bench on the questions considered – Doctrine of Precedents and stare decisis.

Practice & Procedure – Doctrine of Precedents – Rule of per incuriam, an exception – Applicability of – Held: Rule of per incuriam has been developed as an exception to the doctrine of judicial precedent – Literally, it means a judgment passed in ignorance of a relevant statute or any other binding authority – Rule of per incuriam is only applicable to the ratio of the judgment – Constitution of India – Art.370.

Words & Expressions – ‘‘ratio decidendi”; “obiter dictum” – Meaning of – Discussed – Constitution of India – Art.370.