Third Member v Larger Bench
When two members of a Bench differ on an issue, the matter is referred to a third Member who is required to support the judgement of one of the differing members and so his judgement becomes the majority judgement and is accepted. But this, by no means can be accepted as the judgement of a Larger bench. When both the Members of a Bench feel that the issue needs to be decided by a Larger Bench, due to conflicting decisions of two benches, a Larger bench is constituted. Can the Larger Bench constitute the referral bench also? There seems to be no bar! If this is the situation, what is the difference between the Larger bench and the Third Member? Maybe the situation can be rectified by having three members in every Bench, so that there is always a majority judgement and the Larger Bench should always consist of five Members.