New Delhi: The Supreme Court announced on Tuesday (September 5) that a new constitution bench will hear three important cases starting September 20.

This bench will comprise Justices A.S. Bopanna, M.M. Sundresh, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra and Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud.

Constitution benches comprise at least five Supreme Court judges and are formed to adjudicate cases involving significant questions of law and interpretations of constitutional provisions.

The first case listed for the bench, Assam Public Works vs. Union of India, concerns the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

Section 6A was added to the Act in 1985 to allow people who entered India between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971 and have been living in Assam to register themselves as citizens.

Petitioners in the case argue that the separate cut off date for Assam – the cut off for the rest of India is July 19, 1949 – is “unconstitutional” and urged that 1951 be considered the base year for the state.

The Supreme Court has listed the case for hearing in front of constitution benches before, but these have had to be reconstituted because its judges retired, LiveLaw reported.

Ashok Kumar Jain vs. Union of India, the second case, involves a challenge to the extension of reservations in Union and state legislatures to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (and originally to Anglo-Indians as well).

Petitioners in this case contend that the extensions violated the right to equality of those not belonging to the above communities, LiveLaw reported.

In the third case listed before this constitution bench, Sita Soren vs. Union of India, the apex court has to decide whether Article 194(2) of the constitution grants immunity to state-level legislators from accepting bribes to make speeches or votes in the legislature.

Sita Soren, a member of the Jharkhand legislative assembly, was accused by the Central Bureau of Investigation of accepting a bribe to vote for a candidate in the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections. She claimed immunity from prosecution under Article 194(2) but the Jharkhand high court rejected her plea, LiveLaw reported.

She then approached the Supreme Court for relief.

While deliberating her case, the court referenced a 1998 ruling by one of its constitution benches (P.V. Narasimha Rao vs. State), which said that parliamentarians had immunity against criminal prosecution for their speeches and votes inside the House.

According to LiveLaw, the Supreme Court thought it fit to refer Soren's matter before a constitution bench so that it could reconsider its judgement in P.V. Narasimha Rao.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.