Discuss the role of Art. 145(3) in constitutional adjudication.

Article 145(3) requires that a case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, or a Presidential reference under Art. 143, be decided by a bench of not less than five judges [1]. It is thus the procedural gateway through which the Supreme Court speaks as a constitutional court rather than as an ordinary appellate forum.

Design rationale: authority through numbers

• Framed when the Court had only eight judges, the five-judge floor ensured constitutional questions were settled by a majority of the Court, securing coherence and finality.
• Operationalised through Order XXXVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which directs that Art. 32 petitions raising such questions go before a bench of five or more [2].
• Larger benches derive their legitimacy from this base — the 13-judge Kesavananda Bharati bench (1973) that evolved the Basic Structure doctrine is its logical extension.

Functions in adjudication

• Doctrine-making: foundational doctrines — basic structure, federalism, free and fair elections — emerge from Constitution Benches, not two-judge courts.
• Referral discipline: a smaller bench confronting a constitutional question must refer it, preventing conflicting precedent.
• Live illustration: in the challenge to the CEC/EC selection panel, Justice Sharma invoked Art. 145(3), while Justice Datta held that a Union Minister on the panel makes the Leader of Opposition's role "ornamental" [3] — a question going to the Basic Structure, and therefore to bench competence itself. The panel created by Anoop Baranwal (2023) was itself the product of a five-judge bench [4].

Practical limitations

• "Substantial question" is undefined, leaving referral largely to judicial discretion.
• Constitution Benches are constituted infrequently, so weighty questions can remain pending for years, and smaller benches sometimes decide issues of constitutional import.

Article 145(3) is therefore not a mere counting rule but a guarantee of deliberative depth in constitutional interpretation. Institutionalising a standing Constitution Bench and clearer referral criteria would let the provision deliver its promise — that questions touching the Constitution's core are answered by the Court at its fullest strength.