Supreme Court to Clarify Tie-Breaker Judge’s Authority in Split Verdict Cases
The Supreme Court of India is set to delve into the powers of a ‘tie-breaker’ judge when a two-judge Bench delivers a split verdict on limited issues. This significant judicial inquiry was prompted by the case Dr. Rakesh Gupta vs. State of UP, where the Division Bench referred the question to a larger Bench for a comprehensive review.
The case raises the pivotal question of whether a third judge, appointed to resolve a deadlock, possesses the authority to overturn even those decisions unanimously agreed upon by the original Division Bench. Historically, the Supreme Court, in the 1998 ruling of Sajjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, held that a tie-breaker judge is not obligated to adhere to the opinions of the initial Division Bench and has the liberty to independently examine the entire case.
However, recent proceedings led by Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma have questioned the automatic application of this principle across all cases. The Bench has thus referred to a larger Bench the question of whether the Sajjan Singh judgment accurately reflects the law. “While recording our respectful disagreement with the view expressed in Sajjan Singh, we refer the question as to whether Sajjan Singh lays down correct law for decision to a larger Bench of such strength, as the Hon’ble the Chief Justice may constitute,” stated the Court.
This legal conundrum emerged from a 2018 Allahabad High Court verdict, initially delivered by Justice Vikram Nath, now a Supreme Court judge. The case involved three brothers—Anil, Ajay, and Atul Rastogi—convicted by a Lucknow trial court in 2001 for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Upon appeal, the Allahabad High Court Division Bench delivered differing opinions in 2006, with Justice Bhanwar Singh upholding two brothers’ convictions and acquitting Atul, while Justice Devi Prasad Singh upheld the convictions of all three.
As there was contention only regarding Atul’s conviction, the case was referred to a third judge under Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Justice Nath, in 2018, acquitted all three brothers, including those whose convictions had been unanimously upheld by the Division Bench judges.
More Read
Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, the complainant, alongside the State of Uttar Pradesh, challenged these acquittals at the Supreme Court. The complainant argued that the third judge should not have reopened findings that were not disputed. Conversely, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing the brothers, invoked Sajjan Singh to assert that the third judge could reassess the entire case.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that Justice Nath’s approach was supported by Sajjan Singh, but emphasized the need to revisit this precedent. The Court expressed concern that adhering strictly to Sajjan Singh might result in undue reversals of decisions where there was unanimity. “A mechanical application of the law laid down in Sajjan Singh would render these integral components of a just and fair criminal justice delivery system redundant,” it remarked.
The Supreme Court has thus directed the formation of a larger Bench, as per the Chief Justice of India’s discretion, to deliberate on this issue. Advocate Chandrika Misra represented the State of Uttar Pradesh in this case.
