Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: judicial discipline in R A Khan S/O Shri A A Khan vs Nct Of Delhi Through The Chief Secretary on 9 September, 2009Matching Fragments
15. Insofar as the ratio decidendi of a case is concerned, an observation made by superior Court is not binding. Such a decision should be arrived at upon entering into the merits of the case, as ruled in Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) v. Mahant Ram Niwas & another, (2008) 11 SCC 753.
16. The Apex Court in U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh & others v. Dayal Ram Saroj & others, (2007) 2 SCC 138 and also in Maharasthra University of Health Sciences represented by Deputy Registrar v. Paryani Mukesh Jawaharlal & others, (2007) 10 SCC 201 ruled that Judicial discipline is self discipline. It is an inbuilt mechanism in the system itself. Judicial discipline demands that when the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court is brought to the notice of the Bench, it is respected and is binding, subject of course, to the right to take a different view or to doubt the correctness of the decision and the permissible course then often is to refer the question or the case to a larger Bench. This is the minimum discipline and decorum to be maintained by judicial fraternity. The aforesaid ratio also is an authority to the fact that if a judgment is not brought into notice and the decision is taken by a coordinate Bench ignoring the same it would be per incuriam decision. The Apex Court at a great length laid emphasis on the doctrine of precedent in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand & others, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943 with the following observations:
82. In Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs. Jagdish [2001 (2) SCC 247], this Court considered whether the learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court could ignore the judgment of a coordinate Bench on the same issue and held :
"33. As the learned Single Judge was not in agreement with the view expressed in Devilal case it would have been proper, to maintain judicial discipline, to refer the matter to a larger Bench rather than to take a different view. We note it with regret and distress that the said course was not followed. It is well-settled that if a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction disagrees with another Bench of coordinate jurisdiction whether on the basis of "different arguments" or otherwise, on a question of law, it is appropriate that the matter be referred to a larger Bench for resolution of the issue rather than to leave two conflicting judgments to operate, creating confusion. It is not proper to sacrifice certainty of law. Judicial decorum, no less than legal propriety forms the basis of judicial procedure and it must be respected at all costs."
88. In U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh vs. Daya Ram Saroj [2007 (2) SCC 138], the Court noted that by ignoring the earlier decision of a coordinate Bench, a Division Bench of the High Court directed that part-time tube-well operators should be treated as permanent employees with same service conditions as far as possible and observed :
"26. Judicial discipline is self-discipline. It is an inbuilt mechanism in the system itself. Judicial discipline demands that when the decision of a coordinate Bench of the same High Court is brought to the notice of the Bench, it is to be respected and is binding, subject of course, to the right to take a different view or to doubt the correctness of the decision and the permissible course then open is to refer the question or the case to a larger Bench. This is the minimum discipline and decorum to be maintained by judicial fraternity."
90. We are distressed to note that despite several pronouncements on the subject, there is substantial increase in the number of cases involving violation of the basics of judicial discipline. The learned Single Judges and Benches of the High Courts refuse to follow and accept the verdict and law laid down by coordinate and even larger Benches by citing minor difference in the facts as the ground for doing so. Therefore, it has become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and certainty is an important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country in last six decades and increase in the frequency of conflicting judgments of the superior judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch as the courts at the grass root will not be able to decide as to which of the judgment lay down the correct law and which one should be followed.