If Two SC Decisions Are Inconsistent, HCs Can't Follow One Overlooking The Other; Must Try To Reconcile Them Both : Supreme Court

If there are two judgments of the Supreme Court which are inconsistent with each other, which judgment should a High Court follow? A recent Supreme Court judge suggested a way out.

"If two decisions of this Court appear inconsistent with each other, the High Courts are not to follow one and overlook the other, but should try to reconcile and respect them both....and follow that decision whose facts appear more in accord with those of the case at hand", observed a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan.

The judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala recommended to adopt the wise suggestion of Lord Halsbury given in Quinn v. Leathern, 1901 AC 495 at p.506 and reiterated by the Privy Council in Punjab Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Commr. of Income Tax, Lahore AIR 1940 PC 230:

“…… every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions, which may be found there, are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed or qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found.”

However, in earlier judgments, the Supreme Court has observed that when faced with conflicting precedents, the High Court must follow the earlier one. In UT of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, the Supreme Court observed :

"..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."

Also from the judgment - Article 226| Mere Existence Of Disputed Questions Of Fact Won't Affect Writ Court's Jurisdiction To Grant Relief: Supreme Court

Case Name: M/S A.P. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION v. THE TAHSILDAR & ORS. ETC., CIVIL APPEAL NOS 4526-4527 OF 2024