A split decision by the Supreme Court has pushed a contested legal provision into constitutional limbo, after two judges on the same bench reached opposing conclusions on its validity, setting the stage for consideration by a larger bench.The bench of Supreme Court of India comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan delivered separate opinions that diverged sharply on whether the provision could withstand constitutional scrutiny. Justice Nagarathna struck down the provision as unconstitutional, holding that it failed to meet the requirements laid down by the Constitution. Justice Viswanathan, while upholding the provision, did so subject to a set of safeguards designed to ensure its application remained within constitutional limits.
Because of the divergence, the matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of a larger bench, a procedural step triggered when judges on a coordinate bench are unable to agree on a point of law of constitutional significance. Until a larger bench settles the issue, the legal position remains unsettled, with implications for ongoing and future cases governed by the disputed provision.
Justice Nagarathna’s opinion focused on the provision’s compatibility with fundamental rights. She held that the measure failed the tests of reasonableness and proportionality, principles that require any restriction on rights to pursue a legitimate aim, adopt suitable means, and impose the least restrictive burden possible. According to her reasoning, the provision conferred excessive discretion without adequate procedural protections, opening the door to arbitrary application. She emphasised that constitutional guarantees cannot be diluted by legislative convenience and that safeguards must be embedded in the law itself rather than left to executive discretion.
Justice Viswanathan, in contrast, adopted a more deferential approach to legislative judgment. He accepted that the provision pursued a legitimate objective and could operate within constitutional bounds if accompanied by clear safeguards. His opinion outlined conditions under which the provision could be applied, including stricter oversight, defined thresholds for its invocation, and avenues for timely judicial review. In his view, striking down the provision in its entirety would amount to substituting judicial preference for legislative policy, something courts must avoid unless a clear constitutional violation is established.
The split highlights an enduring tension in constitutional adjudication between robust protection of individual rights and judicial restraint in matters of policy. Courts have often grappled with where to draw the line when legislation touches sensitive areas involving state power and personal liberties. The present case underscores how different judicial philosophies can lead to divergent outcomes even when judges agree on the underlying constitutional framework.
Legal experts note that reference to a larger bench elevates the matter’s significance. Larger benches are typically constituted to resolve substantial questions of constitutional interpretation or to reconcile conflicting precedents. Their decisions carry greater authoritative weight and often shape the trajectory of constitutional law for years. Until such a bench rules, lower courts may adopt differing approaches, guided by the reasoning they find more persuasive, adding to legal uncertainty.
The case also brings into focus the role of safeguards as a constitutional tool. While one view holds that safeguards can cure potential excesses in a law, another insists that the absence of inbuilt protections is itself fatal. The larger bench will likely have to address whether safeguards articulated by a court can substitute for statutory guarantees, or whether constitutional compliance demands that such protections be expressly written into the law.