Supreme Court Split Verdicts

January 29, 2025

The Supreme Court of India has faced scrutiny over its handling of split verdicts. These decisions occur when judges cannot reach a consensus. The recent case regarding the burial of Ramesh Baghel’s father marks the complexities of such verdicts. The Court’s approach raises questions about judicial processes and the impact on individuals involved.

About Split Verdicts

A split verdict occurs when judges on a bench disagree on a ruling.
This typically happens in cases with an even number of judges.
In India, most cases are heard by benches with an odd number of judges to avoid such situations.
However, two-judge benches are also common.
When a split verdict arises, it is customary to refer the case to a larger bench for a final decision.

Recent Case Analysis

In the Baghel case, the Supreme Court did not refer the matter to a larger bench despite the split verdict. Justice B V Nagarathna allowed burial on private land, while Justice S C Sharma insisted on a designated burial ground. The Court’s decision aimed to alleviate the distress of the appellant and his family.

Historical Context of Split Verdicts

Split verdicts are not unprecedented in the Supreme Court. A notable example is the hijab ban case in Karnataka. In October 2022, one judge upheld the ban while another struck it down. The case was subsequently referred to a larger bench, which has yet to hear arguments.

Immediate Hearings Post-Split Verdicts

There have been instances where the Supreme Court acted quickly following a split verdict. In 2013, a split decision on the death sentence of Yakub Memon led to a swift hearing by a three-judge bench. Similarly, in a case involving pregnancy termination, the Court took decisive action after a split verdict. These examples highlight the Court’s capacity to respond promptly when necessary.

Implications for Judicial Process

The handling of split verdicts can impact the judicial process. Delays in referring cases to larger benches can prolong uncertainty for litigants. The Supreme Court’s approach to split verdicts reflects its balancing act between legal procedure and the need for timely justice. This balance is crucial in maintaining public trust in the judiciary.

« Previous Post Next Post »