Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan of Supreme Court discussed the application of doctrine of merger in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr. 

What is the Background of Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr. Case? 

• The case involves multiple civil appeals related to land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 
• In one lead case, land belonging to M/s BSK Realtors LLP was acquired. The Delhi High Court allowed their writ petition in 2016, declaring the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. 
• The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed this to the Supreme Court, which dismissed DDA's appeal in 2016 after granting leave. 
• In 2020, a Constitution Bench overturned previous precedent on when land acquisition proceedings lapse under the 2013 Act in the Indore Development Authority case. 
• Based on this, the Government of NCT Delhi filed a new SLP in the Supreme Court seeking reconsideration of the 2016 High Court judgment that had been upheld by the Supreme Court. 
• M/s BSK Realtors raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, arguing the doctrine of merger applied as the High Court order had merged with the Supreme Court's 2016 dismissal of DDA's appeal. 

What were the Court's Observations?  

• The Court stated it was not necessary to opine either way on the applicability of the doctrine of merger for deciding the cases in Groups A and B.1. 
• However, the Court concurred with and upheld the Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) judgment on the doctrine of merger and rule of stare decisis. 
  • It reiterated that the doctrine of merger is not of universal application, and factors like nature of jurisdiction and subject matter of challenge need to be considered. 
• Importantly, the Court clarified that the extraordinary powers under Article 142 to do complete justice remain an exception to the doctrine of merger and stare decisis. 
• Using these Article 142 powers, the Court issued directions to extend timelines for fresh acquisition proceedings and dispensed with certain requirements, effectively overriding the effects of the doctrine of merger in the interests of justice and public interest. 

What is the Doctrine of Merger?  

• About:  
  • The doctrine of merger posits that once an appeal is decided by a higher court, the lower court's judgment ceases to exist in the eyes of the law, having merged with the appellate court's decision. This principle ensures finality in judicial proceedings and prevents multiple rounds of litigation on the same issue. 
• Rationale Behind the Doctrine: 
  • To maintain judicial hierarchy 
  • To prevent conflicting decisions on the same matter 
  • To ensure finality in litigation 
  • To promote judicial economy by avoiding multiple proceedings 
• Exceptions to the Doctrine of Merger 
  • When the higher court dismisses the appeal on grounds of limitation or lack of jurisdiction 
  • When the higher court remands the matter back to the lower court for fresh consideration 
  • In cases where the Supreme Court exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution 
• Implications 
  • Ensures consistency in judicial decisions 
  • Provides clarity on the final binding judgment 
  • Helps in maintaining judicial discipline 
• Criticisms 
  • May sometimes lead to rigidity in the legal system 
  • Can potentially limit the scope for correction of errors in judgments 

What are the Landmark Cases on Doctrine of Merger?  

• Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000): 
  • This case is considered a seminal judgment on the doctrine of merger. 
  • The Supreme Court of India provided a comprehensive analysis of the doctrine and its application. Key points from this judgment include: 
    • The doctrine is not of universal or unlimited application 
    • The nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum must be considered 
    • The content or subject matter of challenge in the higher forum is relevant 
• State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. (1967) 
  • This case established that when a decree is appealed, and the appellate court modifies it in any manner, the decree of the trial court merges with that of the appellate court. 
• Gojer Bros. (P) Ltd. v. Ratan Lal Singh (1974) 
  • The Supreme Court held that even if an appeal is dismissed without a speaking order, the doctrine of merger still applies.