“Will not limit powers under A. 136” – SC Constitution Bench refuses to answer reference by Katju and Lodha JJ.

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court today refused to limit the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution or lay down guidelines with respect to the same..The five-judge Bench disposed of a reference made by a Division Bench in 2010, holding that the question of reference need not be answered since it has been considered and settled by the Court as early as 1950..The Bench comprised of Anil R Dave, Kurian Joseph, Shiva Kirti Singh, AK Goel and Rohinton Nariman JJ..The reference dates back to 2010 and was an appeal from a judgment given by the High Court of Kerala in a dispute pertaining to the genuineness of a Will. The petitioner was not satisfied by a report from the Forensic laboratory on the genuineness of the Will and sought a report from another expert. The said request was rejected by the Trial court and the High Court prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. A Division Bench of Markandey Katju and RM Lodha JJ. had referred the case to a Constitution Bench taking note of the burgeoning case load on Supreme Court..Quoting extensively from the RK Jain Lecture given by Senior Advocate KK Venugopal to rethink the scope of Article 136..The Division Bench had held that,.“In our opinion, the time has now come when an authoritative decision by a Constitution Bench should lay down some broad guidelines as to when the discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution should be exercised, i.e., in what kind of cases a petition under Article 136 should be entertained. If special leave petitions are entertained against all and sundry kinds of orders passed by any court or tribunal, then this Court after some time will collapse under its own burden.”.It had, therefore, referred the matter to a Constitution Bench while stating the following:.“Let the papers of this case be laid before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench, to decide which kinds of cases should be entertained under Article 136, and/or for laying down some broad guidelines in this connection..The Constitution Bench may also consider appointing some senior Advocates of this Court as Amicus Curiae to assist in the matter so that it can be settled after considering the views of all the concerned parties.”.The Court had also issued notice to the Supreme Court Bar Association, the Bar Council of India and the Supreme Court-Advocates-on-Record Association..When the matter was taken up today, the parties to the dispute informed the court that the dispute has already been settled and the “lis” in the matter has, consequently, become infructuous..The Bench was effectively left to decide on the Constitutional issue of Article 136 alone. Advocate CN Sreekumar argued that the Supreme Court has, by various judgments starting from 1950, decided that A.136 jurisdiction should not be limited or restricted by any rule or guideline and it is something which has to be decided on a case to case basis..“[Article] 136 is part of the Basic Structure and it cannot be changed even by the Legislature. Your lordships should not answer the reference; leave it to the court to decide on a case to case basis”, he said..Other parties also agreed with these submissions. As did the Bench, holding that,.“From the perusal of case laws, it is evident that no effort should be made to limit the powers under Article 136.”.It, therefore, disposed of the case without answering the reference.