Constitution Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra to hear five cases starting October 15

Shruti Mahajan October 12 2019
Land Acquisition Act

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Arun Mishra will begin hearing five cases from October 15. The five cases include the case relating to the interpretation of Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Land Acquisition Act, 2013).

The Bench will also comprise Justices Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah, and Ravindra Bhat.

As per the notice issued by the Supreme Court, this Bench is constituted to hear five cases - Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal, State of Haryana vs Maharana Pratap Charitable Trist, Rajendra Diwan vs Pradeep Kumar, Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi), and Mukesh Singh vs State (Narcotics Branch of Delhi).

Of these cases, the Indore Development Authority case, as well as the Maharana Pratap Charitable Trust case, were to be heard by a Constitution Bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices NV Ramana, DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta, and Sanjiv Khanna. However, that combination of Judges was unable to assemble after the first week of April this year and thus, these cases have now been placed before the newly formed five-Judge Bench.

The details of the cases before the newly constituted Constitution Bench are:

  • Indore Development Authority pertains to Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.

The case itself stems from the judgment, Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (Dead) Through Lrs. And Ors, which was delivered on February 8, 2018 by a three-judge Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, AK Goel and M Shantanagoudar. This Bench had, by a 2:1 majority, held that a 2014 judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation case is per incuriam.

In the process, the Court had answered five questions in relation to Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

However, the catch was that the Pune Municipal Corporation judgment was also rendered by a three-judge Bench of Justices Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph, as well former Chief Justice of India RM Lodha.

This created a minor controversy.  Eventually, the matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice by two Benches headed by Justice Mishra and Justice Goel. The matter was then ordered to be placed before a Constitution bench.

  • Maharana Pratap Charitable Trust

This case also relates to Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.

  • Rajendra Diwan vs Pradeep Kumar Ranibala

This is a case pertaining to the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act of 2011 through which, the State Legislature has conferred direct jurisdiction for appeals upon the Supreme Court of India. Section 13(2) of the Act provides for appeals from the Rent Control Tribunal to be heard directly by the Supreme Court. This provision will now be examined by the Constitution Bench.

  • Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi)

This matter relates to the question of whether an anticipatory bail should be for a limited period of time.

  • Mukesh Singh vs State (Narcotics Branch of Delhi)

This case involves the question of whether or not a trial under the Narcotic Substances and Psychotropic Substances Act will get vitiated if the complainant in a  case is also the investigating officer. In view of differing views taken in the past, the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench.

[Read notice]

Constitution Bench from October 15, 2019