is it not the rule of majority comes into effect even constitutional points are decided?

Question

a supreme court bench comprising two judges namely mr praysat and jain ensured a spoke on the BC reservation in higher educations . it was their interpretations of the constitution. Now suppose three bench uphelds the decision . what could be next ? appeal for maximum no of judges to decide. supreme court NRI ( SORRY INDIA ) is in the hands of the upper crusts ( read caste hindu ). and the constitution bench will always have the majority to uphold the decision mr prayasat and jain . interpretationand english may vary. we there fore are not impressed.BC/OBCs are in majority. Bill PASED BY THE majority in the parliament must be complied with. in case supreme court comes in between it can be dissolved till inequality in the society is uprooted by empowering the majority . a few judges can not be allowed to hold majority's interest ( rightful ) at ransom at any cost.

Answer 1

By making such statement you are challenging the integrity of these two judges which may amount to contempt. Mind you whether two judges bench or the full bench consisting of all the sitting judges of the Supreme Court decide any issue its always based on the relevant piece of evidence keeping in mind the circumstances of the case & the constitutional provisions. As an impartial judge which all is supposed to be they decide this issue & give an unbiased judgment. If any party is not satisfied he or she can bring the legal issue which may have got ignored by the lesser bench to the larger bench of judges to look into & re examines the issue. Any bill passed by the parliament by majority doesn’t mean it cannot have constitutional flaw which the Constitutional Court of the country i.e. the Supreme Court of India has to point out & get rectified. Hope now you understand the legal & constitutional implications in such cases.