Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that when conflicting judgments of coordinate benches on a question of law arise and a larger bench reference is pending, the judgment delivered earlier will prevail in the meantime
Prayagraj: Last week (17th May): The Allahabad High Court held that when conflicting judgments of equal benches on a question of law arise and a larger bench reference is pending, the judgment delivered earlier will prevail in the meantime.
Justice Shekhar B. Saraf highlighted the importance of judicial discipline, stating that it is crucial for maintaining the integrity, coherence, and predictability of judicial decisions.
Judicial discipline is a fundamental principle that ensures consistency, predictability, and uniformity in legal decisions. It upholds the integrity and credibility of the legal system. One of the key mechanisms through which judicial discipline is maintained is the doctrine of stare decisis, which means “to stand by things decided.” According to this doctrine, courts are bound to follow their own previous decisions when faced with similar legal issues.
According to Justice Saraf, courts are obligated to follow their own prior decisions when faced with similar legal issues.
The Court noted,
“When a Coordinate Bench issues a judgment on a particular legal issue, that judgment becomes a binding precedent for subsequent cases involving a similar issue before another Coordinate Bench. This ensures that similar cases are decided in a consistent and uniform manner, regardless of the particular composition of the Bench.”
When a coordinate bench issues a judgment on a particular legal issue, that judgment becomes a binding precedent for subsequent cases involving a similar issue before another coordinate bench. This practice guarantees that similar cases are decided consistently and uniformly, irrespective of the specific composition of the bench.
By following earlier decisions, even in the presence of conflicting precedents, courts preserve the integrity of the legal system and uphold the principle of stare decisis. This approach promotes certainty and predictability in the administration of justice.
Considering the Supreme Court’s established law, the single judge observed that the current principle requires a coordinate bench’s earlier decision to be followed until a larger bench issues a new decision.
The Court stated,
“By adhering to the earlier decision, even when faced with conflicting precedents, courts maintain the integrity of the legal system and uphold the principle of stare decisis – the concept that similar cases should be resolved similarly. Practically, following the earlier decision until a larger bench’s decision is issued helps to ensure certainty and predictability in the administration of justice.”
Accordingly, the Court referred the following two issue in questions to a larger bench for a decision:
- In cases where the Supreme Court or the High Court has appointed the arbitrator(s), is it only the Supreme Court or the High Court, respectively, that can hear an application under Section 29A of the Act?
- In cases where the appointment of the arbitrator(s) was made according to the agreement between the parties (including statutory appointments under the MSMED Act, NHAI Act, etc.) and not by the High Court or Supreme Court, can the Court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act exercise the powers under Section 29A of the Act, including the substitution power in Section 29A(6) of the Act?
The Allahabad High Court’s ruling in the M/S Geo Miller Company case had particular implications for applications filed under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, pertaining to the extension of the mandate of an arbitral tribunal.
READ ALSO: ‘Allahabad HC’ = ‘HC of Uttar Pradesh’- PIL Filed Seeking Renaming
The court allowed the applications for mandate based on Indian Farmers Fertilizers v. M/S Manish Engineering Enterprises, where a coordinate bench had held that the application under Section 29A is maintainable before the same court that appointed the arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act.
By adhering to the doctrine of stare decisis and following earlier decisions until the decision of a larger bench is returned, the courts promote certainty and predictability in the administration of justice. This approach ensures that litigants can rely on established legal principles and have a reasonable expectation of consistent outcomes. Certainty and predictability are essential for fostering trust in the judicial system and promoting the rule of law.
Case Title: M/S Geo Miller Company Private Limited v. UP Jal Nigam and Others
