In Brief
This judgment addresses whether a two-judge Bench's disagreement on relief (while agreeing on facts) can be re-heard by a larger Bench. The Court held that the Supreme Court lacks any constitutional provision for intra-court appeals. Though two judges disagreed—one favoring rejection of appellants' claims regarding vitiated Vyapam medical entrance examinations (2008–2012), the other permitting continuation under conditions—they jointly concluded the examination was compromised. The Bench rejected the reference to Article 145(5), clarifying that a larger Bench re-hearing, though procedurally possible, does not constitute a constitutional appeal mechanism.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.