Judicial consistency is the cornerstone of the rule of law. Examine the constitutional mechanisms available to address contradictory judgments by co-equal benches of the Supreme Court of India.

Q. Judicial consistency is the cornerstone of the rule of law. Examine the constitutional mechanisms available to address contradictory judgments by co-equal benches of the Supreme Court of India. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Article 141 makes the law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all courts within India, but the Constitution nowhere binds the Court's own co-equal benches to one another [1]. Contradictory Division Bench rulings therefore strike at legal certainty, and the remedies available are largely procedural and doctrinal rather than expressly constitutional.

Why co-equal bench conflict arises - Art. 141 binds subordinate courts and tribunals; the Supreme Court is not bound by itself, and a two-judge Bench cannot overrule another of equal strength [1]. - Judges ordinarily sit in Benches of two or three, assembling in larger Benches only when required or to settle a difference of opinion [2]. - Only the ratio decidendi binds; expansive obiter widens divergence. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan recently flagged benches invoking "public interest" with no legal relevance to the dispute, and making jingoistic observations, as judges straying beyond the lis [4].

Mechanisms to restore consistency - Reference to a larger/Constitution Bench — the principal cure. Art. 145(3) read with Order XXXVIII Rule 1(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 requires a minimum of five judges for substantial questions of constitutional interpretation [2][3]. - Review jurisdiction under Art. 137, empowering the Court to review its own judgments [1]. - Curative petition — an inherent power exercised post-review to prevent gross miscarriage of justice, regulated by the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 [3]. - Presidential Reference under Art. 143, used to obtain authoritative clarification on unsettled questions [1]. - Doctrines of stare decisis and per incuriam, which deny precedential value to rulings ignoring binding law.

Limitations Referral is discretionary and slow, Constitution Bench matters remain pending for years, and Art. 143 opinions are advisory only.

The mechanisms are adequate in design but under-used in practice. Timely referrals, disciplined confinement of reasoning to the dispute, and regular Constitution Bench sittings would convert Article 141's promise of certainty into lived reality, strengthening the rule of law that the Constitution's basic structure protects.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. The Constitution of India, Government of India (India Code) — Articles 141, 137, 143, 145(3) 2. Jurisdiction, Supreme Court of India — bench strength practice; five-judge requirement for substantial constitutional questions; larger benches to settle differences of opinion 3. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 — Order XXXVIII Rule 1(1) on Constitution Benches; curative petition procedure 4. "SC must ensure consistency in its decisions: senior advocate", The Hindu, 1 March 2026 — thehindu.com — Gopal Sankaranarayanan's critique of irrelevant "public interest" reasoning and jingoistic Bench remarks