Judicial Discipline
IN the above order, the High Court made some interesting observations on Judicial Discipline:
- A Division Bench is bound by the judgment of another Division Bench and a Full Bench of the same High Court. They cannot differ from the earlier judgment of co-ordinate jurisdiction merely because they hold a different view as certainty and uniformity in the administration of justice are of paramount importance.
- An earlier decision may seem to be incorrect to a bench of coordinate jurisdiction considering the question later, on the ground that a possible aspect of the matter was not considered or not raised before the Court or more aspects should have been gone into by the Court deciding the matter earlier, but it would not be a reason to say that the decision was rendered per incuriam and is liable to be ignored. The earlier judgment may seem to be incorrect, yet it will have binding effect on the latter bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction. The easy course of saying that the earlier decision was rendered per incuriam is not permissible and the matter can be resolved only in two ways either for the earlier decision to be followed or to refer the matter to a larger Bench.
- When a Division Bench disagrees with another bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction, whether on the basis of different arguments or otherwise, it is appropriate that the matter be referred to a larger Bench for resolution of the issue rather than leave two conflicting judgments to operate, creating confusion. It is not proper to sacrifice certainty of law. Judicial decorum, no less than legal propriety, forms the basis of judicial procedure and it must be respected at all costs.
- it must be borne in mind that there is no constitutional or statutory prescription on the effect of the law pronounced by a Division Bench, in relation to a case raising the same point subsequently before a Division Bench of the same or smaller number of Judges, and the point is governed entirely by the practice of Courts in India, sanctified by repeated affirmation for over a century. It is in order to guard against the possibility of inconsistent decisions on points of law by different Division Benches that this Rule has been evolved, in order to promote consistency and certainty in the development of the law, and its contemporary status that the statement of the law by a Division Bench is considered binding on a Division Bench of the same or lesser number of Judges.
- Article 141 of the Constitution stipulates that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. The aforesaid Article empowers the Supreme Court to declare the law. The law which is binding under Article 141 would, therefore, extend to all observations on the points raised and decided by the Court in a given case. The decision, in a judgment of the Supreme Court, cannot be assailed on the ground that certain aspects were not considered or the relevant provisions were not brought to the notice of the Court.
- The decisions of the Supreme Court are of significance not merely because they constitute an adjudication of the rights of the parties and resolve the disputes between them, but also because, in doing so, they embody a declaration of law operating as a binding principle in future cases. The law declared by the Supreme Court binds all Courts in India. On the law having been declared by the Supreme Court, it is the duty of the High Court, whatever be its view, to act in accordance with Article 141 of the Constitution of India and to apply the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Judicial discipline to abide by the declaration of law, of the Supreme Court, cannot be forsaken by any Court, be it even the highest Court in a State, oblivious of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
- A Decision is not necessarily synonymous with opinion. A decision of the Court is its judgment; the opinion is the reasons given for that judgment, or the expression of the views of the Judge. In the case of a decision, the appellate structure is exhausted after a pronouncement by the Supreme Court. The only option left to the parties is of review or curative jurisdiction.
- Judicial discipline requires, and decorum known to law warrants, that appellate directions should be followed. In the hierarchical system of courts which exists in this country it is necessary for each lower tier to accept loyally the decisions of the higher tiers.
- The judicial system only works if someone is allowed to have the last word and if that last word, once spoken, is loyally accepted. A judgment of the High Court which refuses to follow the decision and directions of the Supreme Court or seeks to revive a decision of the High Court which had been set aside by the Supreme Court is a nullity.
- The singular Constitutional role of the Supreme Court under the Constitution, and correspondingly of the assisting role of all authorities - civil or judicial in the territory of India - towards it, mandates the High Court, which is one such judicial authority covered under Article 144 of the Constitution, to act in aid of the Supreme Court. The order of the Supreme Court is a judicial order, and is otherwise enforceable throughout the territory of India under Article 142 of the Constitution. The High Court is bound to come in aid of the Supreme Court in having its order worked out.
- While the High Court is independent, and is a co-equal institution, the Constitutional scheme and judicial discipline requires that the High Court should give due regard to the orders of the Supreme Court which are binding on all Courts within the territory of India.