Decision where appeal heard by two or more Judges
Full Text
(1) Where an appeal is heard by a Bench of two or more Judges, the appeal shall be decided in accordance with the opinion of such Judges or of the majority (if any) of such Judges.
(2) Where there is no such majority which concurs in a judgment varying or reversing the decree appealed from, such decree shall be confirmed:
Provided that where the Bench hearing the appeal is composed of two or other even number of Judges belonging to a Court consisting of more Judges than those constituting the Bench and the Judges composing the Bench differ in opinion on a point of law, they may state the point of law upon which they differ and the appeal shall then be heard upon that point only by one or more of the other Judges, and such point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority (if any) of the Judges who have heard the appeal, including those who first heard it.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to alter or otherwise affect any provision of the letters patent of any High Court.
Plain English Summary
Section 98 prescribes the procedure when an appellate Bench of two or more Judges hears an appeal, providing that decisions follow the majority opinion, confirming the lower court decree if an evenly divided Bench splits without a majority, allowing reference of differing points of law to a third Judge, and preserving High Court Letters Patent provisions.
Key Legal Elements
- Majority Rule: Appellate decisions follow the unanimous or majority concurrence of the hearing Bench.
- Split Bench Confirmation Rule: If an evenly divided Bench lacks a majority to reverse or modify the decree, the lower court decree stands confirmed.
- Reference on Point of Law: If an even-numbered Bench splits on a pure question of law, they may formulate the specific question for hearing by a third/other Judge.
- Cumulative Majority Determination: The point of law is decided based on the overall majority of all Judges who heard the point (including original Bench).
- Letters Patent Precedence (Sec 98(3)): Expressly saves the Letters Patent of Chartered High Courts (e.g., Clause 36), which take precedence over Section 98.
Practical Note
Division Bench Split, Third Judge Reference & Letters Patent Clause 36 Interplay: (1) Differing on Facts vs Differing on Law: Under the Proviso to Section 98(2), reference to a third Judge is permissible ONLY when the Judges differ on a 'point of law'. If the two Judges differ purely on findings of fact or appraisal of evidence, the proviso cannot be invoked, and under Section 98(2), the decree appealed from must automatically be confirmed (*P.V. Hemalatha v. Kattamkandi Puthiya Maliackal Saheeda, 2002*). (2) Letters Patent Superiority (Sec 98(3)): In Chartered High Courts (e.g. Bombay, Calcutta, Madras), Clause 36 of the Letters Patent provides that upon an equal divide on *any* point (fact or law), the matter must be referred to a third Judge. In *P.V. Hemalatha (2002)* and *Babu Verghese*, the Supreme Court affirmed that by virtue of Section 98(3), Clause 36 of Letters Patent overrides Section 98(2) for intra-court appeals in Chartered High Courts. (3) Scope of Third Judge's Hearing: The third Judge hears only the specific formulated point of difference, not the entire appeal afresh.
हिंदी पाठ
(1) जहाँ कोई अपील दो या अधिक न्यायाधीशों की किसी न्यायपीठ द्वारा सुनी जाती है, वहाँ उस अपील का विनिश्चय ऐसे न्यायाधीशों की अथवा ऐसे न्यायाधीशों के बहुमत की (यदि कोई हो) राय के अनुसार किया जाएगा।
(2) जहाँ ऐसा कोई बहुमत नहीं है जो अपीलगत डिक्री में फेरफार करने या उसे उलटने वाले निर्णय से सहमत हो, वहाँ ऐसी डिक्री की पुष्टि की जाएगी:
परन्तु जहाँ अपील सुनने वाली न्यायपीठ ऐसे न्यायालय के दो या अन्य सम संख्या वाले न्यायाधीशों से गठित है जिसमें न्यायपीठ का गठन करने वाले न्यायाधीशों से अधिक न्यायाधीश हैं और न्यायपीठ का गठन करने वाले न्यायाधीश विधि के किसी प्रश्न पर राय में भिन्न हैं, वहाँ वे विधि के उस प्रश्न का कथन कर सकेंगे जिस पर वे भिन्न हैं और तब अपील केवल उसी प्रश्न पर अन्य न्यायाधीशों में से एक या अधिक द्वारा सुनी जाएगी, और ऐसे प्रश्न का विनिश्चय उन न्यायाधीशों के, जिन्होंने अपील सुनी है, जिसके अंतर्गत वे न्यायाधीश भी हैं जिन्होंने उसे पहले सुना था, बहुमत (यदि कोई हो) की राय के अनुसार किया जाएगा।
(3) इस धारा की कोई भी बात किसी उच्च न्यायालय के लेटर्स पेटेंट (Letters Patent) के किसी उपबंध में फेरफार करने वाली या उसे अन्यथा प्रभावित करने वाली नहीं समझी जाएगी।