When Justice Chandrachud’s wrong notions were corrected by Mumbai’s lawyer.
Many people are unclear about the correct terms for different Bench strengths in the Supreme Court, especially for a three-Judge Bench and above.
In practice, lawyers and even some courts have used terms like “Division Bench,” “Full Bench,” and “Full Court” while referring to Supreme Court Benches. A common understanding is this: a two-Judge Bench is called a Division Bench, a three-Judge Bench is referred to as a Full Bench, and a Bench of five or more Judges is called a Constitution Bench.
In Union of India v. Haresh Virumal Milani, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 1705, the Bombay High Court referred to the three-Judge Bench decision in Pritish as a “Full Bench of the Supreme Court.”
In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 10 (para 41), while referring to a Five-Judge Bench decision in Ram Singh v. State of Delhi, 1951 SCC 331, the Supreme Court used the expression “Full Court.”
Despite this usage, confusion has persisted, and on some occasions even Judges have expressed an ex-facie incorrect understanding of the term “Full Bench” in the Supreme Court. Two notable instances are often cited:
- In Deepak Kumar Gupta v. K.S. Rakhra, 2008 SCC OnLine All 2033, the Allahabad High Court incorrectly observed:
“21 […] the ‘Full Bench Decision’ of the Supreme Court (as the applicant chose to call it, not realising that in Supreme Court there is no such thing as a ‘Full Bench’, it is either a Bench or a Constitution Bench).”
- On 15.01.2022, during a hearing in a Covid vaccine matter concerning a pregnant woman, titled as Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 572 of 2021, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, made an observation during his exchange with Advocate Nilesh Ojha that in the Supreme Court does not have a “Full Bench” as a recognised category. Advocate Ojha did not let that statement pass as a settled position. He responded firmly and directly, and he clarified the position from the observations of binding precedents and also from the perspective of long-standing court usage and professional practice. He pointed out that courts and lawyers have, for decades, used “Full Bench” to describe a three-Judge Bench. [Adv. Ojha was representing Shri Ambar Koiri (Awaken India Movement)]
- On that day not only people but Justice Chandrachud himself realized that he is lacking many basic concepts of the law.