CJI: what about Article 145(3)?

Datar: please see proviso to Article 145(3)

CJI: therefore, the court was required

Datar: if they are satisfied. Under 145, to struck down constitutional provisions, there have been two-three judges benches.

SG Mehta: here, the learned AG did make a request to refer to larger bench

Datar: court says if it is not necessary to refer to five judges. I can give n number of cases where two and three judges bench have heard constitutional interpretation. I would submit, my proposition is, Article 145(3) is not taken as necessary mandate. It is not illegality and irregularity.

CJI: when specific question is made

Datar: go for a review. My argument is two judges have not struck down any constitutional provisions. They have said, do it in 3 months and if not done, approach the court.

Suppose tomorrow, I file a writ petition or it comes before Madras High Court and I raise an objective that it should be heard by five judges. Suppose court is going to lying on precedents and say it is not necessary to. I am only saying, then everything will wait for the five judges. Court has only said, as soon as possible means 3 months.