LAW FOR ALL : Constitutional Law — Article 370 — Scope and Continuance — Reference to larger Bench — When warranted. A coordinate Bench may refer a question to a larger Bench where there is an irreconcilable conflict in the ratios of earlier decisions of this Court, or where a proposition of law has become unworkable or is contrary to a well-established principle. The doctrine of stare decisis and precedent compels restraint; references to larger Benches should not be made for minor or contextual inconsistencies. (Paras 17–24, 27) Precedent — Binding force of coordinate Bench rulings — Distinction between ratio decidendi and obiter. Decisions of a coordinate Bench are binding on subsequent Benches of equal or lesser strength unless the subsequent Bench concludes that the prior decision is per incuriam or expresses doubt warranting a reference. Only the ratio decidendi (the principle necessary to the decision) is binding; obiter dicta do not bind. (Paras 23–26) Doctrine of per incuriam — Scope and application. The rule of per incuriam is an exception that denudes a prior decision of its precedential value where a judgment was rendered in ignorance of a relevant statutory provision or binding authority, or where the later decision is irreconcilable with an earlier binding decision. The rule applies strictly and only to ratio decidendi; it is to be invoked sparingly because of the importance of legal certainty. A failure to mention or discuss an earlier decision does not, by itself, render a judgment per incuriam unless the omission produces an irreconcilable conflict in ratio. (Paras 28–33, 46) Article 370 — Historical context and interpretation — Constituent Assembly role. Article 370 was enacted as a temporary/transitory provision to govern the special relationship between Jammu & Kashmir and the Union pending the decision of the State Constituent Assembly. The Constituent Assembly’s decisions under Article 370(2) carried finality with respect to antecedent State government actions placed before it. However, whether Article 370 would cease to operate on dissolution of the Constituent Assembly depends upon the text and context of Article 370 and the subsequent practice and orders made thereunder. (Paras 34–36, 42–44) Case law examined — Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir; Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu & Kashmir; Mohd. Maqbool Damnoo. Prem Nath Kaul: observations emphasised the importance of the Constituent Assembly and made remarks reflecting Article 370’s transitory character in context of the yuvaraj’s legislative competence. Sampat Prakash: held Article 370 continued to operate after dissolution of the Constituent Assembly and validated continuation of Constitution Orders issued under Article 370; the Constituent Assembly had not recommended cessation of Article 370. The Court held that when read in context there is no irreconcilable conflict between the two Constitution-Bench decisions. (Paras 38–46) Reference refused — Application to petitions challenging Constitution Orders C.O. 272/2019 & C.O. 273/2019. On the preliminary question whether the present petitions raising constitutional challenges to Constitution Orders issued under Article 370 should be referred to a larger Bench because of alleged conflicting precedents, the Court held there was no such conflict in ratio requiring reference. The Court further held Sampat Prakash is not per incuriam. Consequently, the prayer for a reference to a larger Bench was rejected. (Paras 41–47) Principles on overruling and judicial restraint. Overruling established precedent is an exceptional exercise; courts should exercise restraint and only in cases where the earlier decision is manifestly wrong, unworkable, or contrary to established principles or when societal/constitutional/economic changes compel evolution of law. References or overruling should not be done lightly because of the public-interest value of certainty and reliance. (Paras 17