Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Judicial comity demands that a binding decision to which his attention had been drawn should neither be ignored nor overlooked. If he does not find himself in agreement with the same, the proper procedure is to refer the binding decision and direct the papers to be placed before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question (see Food Corporation of India v. Yadav Engineer and Contractor, (1982) 2 SCC 499 : AIR 1982 SC 1302).

(Emphasis added)

46. Social, moral, philosophical, political inclinations or preferences do not permit a legitimate distancing from decided and binding precedent. Judicial discipline and comity demand require personal penchants or predilections be suborned to certainty and consistency. Departures from decided, binding views are to be done in a prescribed manner, and in that manner only, and they may be done only in a narrowly defined band of cases: where there is manifest or plain error, etc. The causes may vary greatly. But, at the very least, I should imagine there should be such an overwhelming case made out that the second judge cannot but possibly say the previous case was wrongly decided. It is impermissible for a later court to hold that an earlier decision of a bench of coordinate or greater strength is incorrect on the basis of arguments previously 3rd March 2017 Enercon GmbH v Wind World (India) Ltd & Ors 921-chscdl7-17+D.doc made, considered and decided, merely because some other view is possible. Another view does not need to be taken only because it might be taken. A differing view should be taken only when it must be taken.