High Courts Cannot Refuse To Follow SC Judgment On Ground Of Review/Reference Pending Against It; In Case Of Conflicting Judgments, Follow Earlier One : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has clarified that the High Courts cannot refuse to follow its binding judgment on the ground that a reference has been made against it to the larger bench or a review is pending against it.

It 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.”

The Court provided clear guidance on the approach that High Courts should adopt when deciding cases. The Court emphasized that the High Courts must proceed to decide matters based on the existing law and should not delay decisions pending the outcome of references or review petitions. Additionally, in situations involving conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength, High Courts are instructed to follow the earlier judgment.

It opined “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. In any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 6805. The High Courts, of course, will do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before it.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was deciding a filed by the Union Territory of Ladakh opposing the allotment of 'plough' symbol to JKNC

The Supreme Court boldly asserted its authority, stating it possesses the power to even turn back the clock, if circumstances require such drastic measures. The court's ability to restore status quo ante was emphasized, with reference to a precedent in Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, (2016) 8 SCC 1.

It observed “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. The relief(s) granted in the lead opinion by Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, (2016) is enough on this aspect”.

The judgment also addressed a recent reference to a larger bench regarding Nabam Rebia in Subhash Desai v Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 607. The court clarified that the questions referred to the larger bench do not diminish its power to restore the status quo ante. It further emphasized that a mere reference to a larger bench does not unsettle established legal principles.

It noted “We know full well that a 5- Judge Bench in Subhash Desai v Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 607 has referred Nabam Rebia (supra) to a Larger Bench. However, the questions referred to the Larger Bench do not detract from the power to bring back status quo ante. That apart, it is settled that mere reference to a larger Bench does not unsettle declared law.”

Case title: UT of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749; INSC 2023 804

Click here to read the judgment