'Courts Must Apply Binding Precedents, Can't Sidestep Them By Distinguishing In Name' : Supreme Court Emphasises Judicial Discipline

In a strong reaffirmation of judicial hierarchy and discipline, the Supreme Court has reminded courts across the country that “the judiciary draws its strength from discipline and not dominion,” underscoring that obedience to binding precedent is a constitutional duty.

"We restate the simple duty of Courts: apply precedent as it stands and give effect to appellate directions as they are framed. In that discipline lies the confidence of litigants and the credibility of courts," the Court observed.

The Court said that it was unlawful for a Court to ignore a binding precedent by distinguishing it only superficially, ignoring the essence. 

"The lawful course is to apply the precedent and, if needed, record reasons for inviting a larger Bench to reconsider it. The unlawful and unjust course is to distinguish in name while disregarding in substance or to recast issues in order to sidestep a rule that binds," the Court said.

The observations were made by a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale in a judgment, which stressed that Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution impose a clear obligation on all courts and authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court and to give effect to its declarations of law.

"The Constitution of India creates courts of record that are independent in their spheres and yet binds them together through a coherent hierarchy. The High Courts in India possess a wide jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court of India remains the final interpreter of law. Article 141 of the Constitution of India1declares that the law laid down by this Court binds every court in the country. Further, Article 144 of the Constitution obliges all authorities, civil and judicial, to act in aid of this Court. These are not ceremonial recitals. They are the structural guarantees that convert dispersed adjudication into a single system that speaks with one voice and commands public confidence."

Warning against defiance and evasion

The judgment cautioned that any form of resistance or evasion by subordinate courts undermines the rule of law. “When a superior court reverses, modifies, or remands, the court below must give full and faithful effect to that disposition,” the Court said. “Resistance or evasion does not merely disserve a party before the court; it erodes predictability, multiplies litigation, and weakens faith in the rule of law.”

Citing the Latin maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is in the public interest that litigation should come to an end), the Bench observed that finality from the apex court “is the glue that holds a nationwide system of justice together.”

Justice Nath, who authored the judgment, described judicial discipline as “the ethic that turns hierarchy into harmony.” The Court explained that discipline in the judicial system “requires courtesy, restraint, and obedience to binding precedent even where a judge is personally unpersuaded.”

It clarified that the lawful course for a judge who doubts a precedent is to apply it and, if necessary, record reasons for referring the matter to a larger Bench and not to bypass or reinterpret binding law in substance.  

Reiterating the importance of stare decisis, the Bench said: “Stare decisis et non quieta movere, which means to stand by decisions and not to disturb settled matters, is not a slogan but a safeguard of equality before the law.”

Judges do not sit to settle scores.

The Court reminded that “judges do not sit to settle scores. The gavel is an instrument of reason and not a weapon of reprisal.” A vindictive stance, it said, “is incompatible with the oath to uphold the Constitution and the law.”

Calling collegiality “the companion virtue of independence,” the Court said that reversals on appeal should not be seen as personal affronts but as part of “the ordinary operation of a constitutional hierarchy that corrects error and settles law.”

Judges do not sit to settle scores. The gavel is an instrument of reason and not a weapon of reprisal. A vindictive stance is incompatible with the oath to uphold the Constitution and the law.

Respect for the senior jurisdiction is not subservience

“Respect for the senior jurisdiction is not subservience,” the Bench observed. “It is an acknowledgment that all courts pursue a common enterprise to do justice according to law.”

The Court stressed that “courts speak through reasons,” and reasons that align with binding authority “preserve both the legality and legitimacy of the judiciary.” A judgment attempting to resist binding authority, it warned, “undermines the unity of law, burdens litigants with avoidable expense and delay, and invites the perception that outcomes depend on the identity of the judge.”

The Court made these observations while allowing a batch of 96 civil appeals and set aside a common order of the Bombay High Court that had sustained revenue mutations describing private lands as vested forest. The Court held that vesting under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 could not be sustained on the basis of stale, unserved Section 35(3) notices under the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had misconstrued Gazette extracts that merely reproduced draft texts inviting objections and treated ministerial mutation entries as if they could perfect vesting. The Bench also criticised the High Court for attempting to distinguish the binding precedent in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and concluded that the present matters are indistinguishable in principle from that earlier ratio. The Court warned that judicial discipline and Article 141 require faithful application of binding precedent.

Case : Rohan Vijay Nahar v State of Maharashtra

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1082

Click here to read the judgment