JUDGEMENT AND ITS CRITICAL EVALUA EVALUATION TION The Union of India was only party to the petition, and seven States intervened, presumably because the question of legislative competence had been raised.
The petition was by a single shareholder and was not a representative petition on behalf b ehalf of all, or of a majority of the shareholders of the four banks. o shareholders! meeting meeting had been called ca lled in any of the "anks, to authori#e them to support the petitioner, or to file an independent petition. o "ank was a party to the petition and none had complained that their fundamental rights had been violated.
The case was heard by a bench of 11 judges. The majority judgment delivered, declared the impugned Act void. In the majority judgment, judgmen t, it was observed observed that: that:
The $ct is within the legislative competence of the %arliament& but it makes hostile discrimination discrimination against the named banks from carrying on banking business, whereas other banks ' Indian and (oreign ' are permitted to carry on banking business, and even new banks may be formed which may engage in banking business& it, in reality restricts the named banks from carrying on business other than banking as defined in Section )*b+ of the $ct violated the guarantee of compensation under $rticle -*+ in that it provides for giving certain amounts determined according to principles which are not relevant in the determination of compensation of the undertaking of the named banks and by the method prescribed amounts so declared cannot be regarded as compensation.
Conclusion $ /ritical 0valuation of the 1udgment2 It is clear that the rights of the banks were decided in their absence and without hearing them. The petitioner came to court e3pressly stating that he did not challenge the $ct as violating the "ank!s fundamental rights but as violating his own, and the court ended up by deciding that the $ct violated the "ank!s fundamental rights under $rticles -4, -5 and -. If the petitioner wanted to base the violation of the "ank!s fundamental rights, he would have had to join the "anks as respondents to the petition. "ut his petition showed that, that was not his case and he did not join the "anks and parties to the petition. It is submitted that the majority judgment was rendered in violation of the principles of natural justice. 6owever, it was necessary to hear the "anks before a final decision, affecting their rights, was arrived at, and the b anks were not heard. It is submitted that the majority judgment is null and void because the Supreme /ourt has repeatedly held that any judgment affecting the rights of parties rendered in violation of the principles of natural justice is void.
The $ct impugned in the "ank ationali#ation case was a special $ct for the acquisition of the banking business of the -4 banks, but the $ct nevertheless e3pressly authori#ed the banks, whose banking business was acquired, to carry on non7banking business which they would be entitled to do, if necessary, by suitably altering their 8emorandum of $ssociation. In other words, unlike the $cts already considered, the acquisition was partial. If a challenge under erstwhile $rticle -5*-+*g+ was open to the banks, the reasonableness of the provisions of the $ct as to the time within which the compensation was to be paid would have arisen for the first time before the Supreme /ourt.
