Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta observed that ignoring a judgment of court would undermine soundness.

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the case of Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

What was the Background of Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors Case?

• The State of Haryana inserted sub-clause (6) to Section 2(g) of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 by a gazette notification dated 11th February 1992, which received the President's assent on 14th January 1992.
• The review petitioner, along with other landowners, filed a batch of writ petitions before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, challenging the amendment.
• A Full Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petitions.
• The State of Haryana challenged the Full Bench's decision before the Supreme Court in a Civil Appeal.
  • The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration due to Article 31A of the Constitution.
• The Full Bench of the High Court, vide judgment dated 13th March 2003, partly allowed the petitions and issued certain directions regarding mutation entries made by the Revenue Authorities.
• Aggrieved by the Full Bench's judgment, the State of Haryana filed Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court, which was allowed by the Supreme Court's judgment dated 7th April 2022.
• The review petitioner filed the present review petition against the Supreme Court's judgment dated 7th April 2022.
• The review petitioner submitted that the Supreme Court's judgment under review (JUR) was contrary to the law laid down by the Constitution Bench judgments.
• He contended that JUR did not correctly consider the precedents set by Constitution Bench judgments regarding the vesting of land and modification of rights under the consolidation scheme.
  • JUR ignored settled precedents that were holding the field for decades.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The SC held that “Ignoring the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court and taking a view totally contrary to the same itself would amount to a material error, manifest on the face of the order.
• The court allowed a review petition.

What is Doctrine of Precedent under Constitution of India, 1950?

• About:
  • The rule of precedent has been adopted from English jurisprudence into the Indian Constitution.
  • Article 141 of the COI deals with the doctrine of precedent.
    • Article 141 stipulates that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.
  • The doctrine of precedent is a principle of following previous decisions of the Court within its well-defined limits.
  • The part of the judgement which constitutes the ratio decidendi of the judgement has a binding effect and not the part of the judgement which constitutes of obiter dictum.
    • The rationale of the judgment is called Ratio Decidendi. Such a principle of law is not only applicable to that particular case but all subsequent similar cases.
    • Obiter Dictum is a mere judicial opinion in a particular case and has no general application.
  • In Bir Singh v. Union of India (2019), it was held that the judgment of a decided case is precedent and the same will operates as a binding precedent to all possible contingencies when a similar issue of law arises.
• General Principles in Relation to Doctrine of Precedent:
  • The decisions of the superior courts bind the inferior courts, and they are obligated to follow them.
  • The SC is not bound by its own decisions and has the liberty to depart from them if necessary.
  • The decision put forth by one high court does not constitute a binding precedent over another.
  • The HCs or the other subordinate courts do not have the power to rule out the decisions of the SC.
  • Procedural irregularity and immateriality do not invalidate the binding nature of a judgement
  • Ex-parte decisions by Supreme Court are also binding in nature and can be used as precedents.
  • A Bench with a lesser quorum cannot dissent from the decisions of a larger quorum.
  • Procedural irregularity and immateriality do not invalidate the binding nature of a judgement