In a recent pronouncement on January 3rd, the Supreme Court underscored the crucial significance of maintaining judicial discipline. The Court asserted that when confronted with a decision from a coordinate Bench of the same High Court, it must be acknowledged and adhered to by the bench. However, this adherence is subject to the right of an equivalent quorum bench to adopt a divergent perspective and refer the matter to a larger bench.
“The rule of ‘Judicial Discipline and Propriety’ and the Doctrine of precedents serve the purpose of fostering certainty and consistency in judicial decisions, assuring individuals about the consequences of their actions.”
Consequently, when a decision from a coordinate Bench of the same High Court is brought to the attention of the bench, it is to be respected and considered binding, with the caveat that a co-equal quorum bench has the prerogative to take a different stance and escalate the matter to a larger bench. This remains the sole recourse available to a bench of co-equal strength when confronted with a prior decision made by a bench of the same strength.
Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal articulated these observations during the resolution of a civil appeal. The case revolved around Mary Pushpam, who filed a civil suit in 1995 seeking a declaration of possession and permanent injunction against the respondents. The basis for the suit was an earlier 1976 suit filed by the respondents for her ejectment, which was ultimately dismissed in 1990.
The Court noted that during the proceedings of the second suit (1995), the respondents sought its dismissal, arguing ownership of 8 cents of land. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the appellant only concerning the portion with the house, dismissing the suit regarding the rest of the property. The High Court, in an appeal, initially sided with the appellant but later restored the Trial Court’s decree in the second appeal.
The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court, while deciding the first suit, consistently recorded the suit property as comprising 8 cents of land. Any interpretation deviating from this clear judgment would constitute judicial indiscipline, the Court ruled.
Additionally, the Court briefly delved into the doctrine of merger, asserting that only one operative order can govern the same subject matter simultaneously. Consequently, the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court from the first suit were absorbed into the previous High Court’s judgment of March 30, 1990, according to this doctrine.
“Lower or subordinate Courts lack the authority to contradict the decisions of higher Courts, and in this case, the Trial Court and the High Court violated this judicial discipline in the second round of litigation,” added the Court.
In light of these findings, the appeal was allowed, and the contested judgment was overturned.
