India’s Supreme Court has referred to a larger constitutional bench the question of how far a tie-breaker judge’s powers extend under Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, escalating a statutory interpretation issue with implications for criminal appeals.
Section 392 governs situations where a division bench of a High Court is divided in opinion on a criminal appeal. A third judge — the tie-breaker — may be called upon to resolve the split, but the precise scope of that judge’s authority has remained contested.
The referral to a larger bench indicates that existing precedents do not fully settle whether the tie-breaker may reconsider only the point of disagreement or may examine the appeal more broadly. Criminal lawyers said the answer affects how split verdicts are processed across High Courts.
Constitutional benches typically comprise five or more judges and are convened when substantial questions of law require authoritative resolution. The Supreme Court’s decision to escalate the issue suggests divergent views among benches on the interpretive question.
Until the larger bench rules, lower courts may encounter uncertainty when recording divided opinions in criminal appeals. The outcome will shape appellate procedure in cases where two judges disagree on conviction, sentence or points of evidence law.
Created by Ayen Stabel.
Stabel is AI and can make mistakes.
Sources:
https://supremetoday.ai/