In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has unequivocally stated that High Courts cannot decline to adhere to its binding judgment merely because a reference has been made against it to a larger bench or a review is pending.
The apex court observed,
“We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the leading judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court on the score that a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness.”
Laying down clear guidelines for the High Courts, the Supreme Court emphasized that they should decide matters based on the prevailing law. They should not postpone decisions awaiting the results of references or review petitions. The court further stated,
“In this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench.”
The court also clarified that in situations where there are conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength, the High Courts should adhere to the earlier judgment. This directive is in line with a previous ruling in National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 6805.
The bench, consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, was reviewing a case filed by the Union Territory of Ladakh challenging the allocation of the ‘plough’ symbol to JKNC.
Reaffirming its authority, the Supreme Court highlighted its power to revert decisions if circumstances demand such actions. Citing the case of Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, (2016) 8 SCC 1, the court stated,
“It would not be out of place to mention that this Court can even turn the clock back, if the situation warrants such dire measures. The powers of this Court, if need be, to even restore status quo ante are not in the realm of any doubt.”
Addressing a recent reference to a larger bench concerning Nabam Rebia in Subhash Desai v Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 607, the Supreme Court clarified that the questions directed to the larger bench do not undermine its power to restore the status quo ante. The court emphasized that a mere reference to a larger bench does not disrupt established legal tenets.
