Article 145(3)

Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar recently raised certain issues with respect to the transparency in the judiciary, Supreme Court’s powers of judicial review and the judgment prescribing timelines to the President and Governor for their actions. judicial overreach of the judiciary.

Vice-President’s Observations

• The judiciary, unlike the legislature and executive, lacks direct public accountability.
• Increasing instances of the judiciary reviewing legislation and passing orders that may be seen as encroaching on executive functions have raised questions about the separation of powers.
• Highlighted the need to revisit Article 145(3) in light of the Supreme Court’s increased strength.

Constitutional Provision: Article 145(3)

• Current Rule: Any case that involves a substantial question of law relating to the interpretation of the Constitution must be heard by a bench of at least five judges.
• Historical Context:
  • Introduced in 1950, when the Supreme Court had 8 judges.
  • The intent was to ensure greater deliberation and authority on critical constitutional matters.
• Present Situation:
  • The strength of the Supreme Court has increased to 34 judges.
  • Despite this growth, Constitution Benches are rarely constituted, and many important cases are decided by smaller benches.