On 13/11/2019, while referring to the disqualification of the of the MLAs from Karnataka, thus upholding the Speaker's decision, senior advocate Kapil Sibal made a submission that the law mandates the Court to refer matters to a larger bench since there arises a substantial question of law concerning the interpretation of the Constitution.
The three judge bench headed by Justice NV Ramana, believed that there was no such crisis regarding this particular case. The Court, however, realized that when it came to the provisions of Article 145 (3) of the Constitution, the Court has never dealt with it in an extensive and exhaustive manner. The Court said, "More often than not, have received mere lip service, wherein this Court has found existence of case laws which have already dealt with the proposition involved and have rejected such references.” Taking into consideration two important phrases viz. “substantial question of law” and ‘interpretation of the Constitution” found in article 1345 (3), the court said that two fundamental conditions must be fulfilled before the matter may be sent to a Constitution bench. The conditions being:
The Court made a classic reference to Abdul Rahim Ismail C. Rahimtoola v. State of Bombay and observed that a question of Constitutional interpretation would only arise if such a circumstance arose where multiple constructions were sought to be placed upon a singular provision. “Casual and cavalier references should not be undertaken by this Court in view of conditions prescribed under Article 145(3) of the Constitution, which mandates a responsibility upon this Court not to indulge in excessive academic endeavors and preserve precious judicial time, and effectively dispense justice in a timely fashion."