Judgments Rendered By High Courts In Other States Hold Persuasive Value, Reasons Must Be Given For Dissent: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that while the decisions of other High Courts, especially those supported by detailed reasoning, may carry high persuasive value, they do not constitute binding precedent for courts outside their jurisdiction.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said, "While a pronouncement from a High court, particularly one rendered after detailed analysis and reasoned exposition, may command high persuasive authority, it does not operate as a precedent in the binding sense for other High Courts."

The bench added that each High Court is competent to interpret and apply the law within its own territorial limits, and in doing so, it may adopt a view distinct from that of another High Court.

Speaking for the bench Justice Goel said, "At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that law will be bereft of all its utility if it ought to be thrown into the state of uncertainty on account of conflicting stalemates and, therefore, it is essential that a High Court while deferring with a view taken by other High Court(s) ought to record its dissent with reasons therefor."

In other words, a judgment of other High Court ought to be taken note of and dissented with only upon recording reasons, including reasons for not adhering to persuasive value of judgment of another High Court, it added.

The Court was hearing a batch plea filed by MBBS students whose result was declared on August 18, 2023 and they were seeking benefit of National Medical Commission (NMC) amended notification issued on September 01, 2023.

The notification stated that in subjects with two papers, the student must secure a minimum of 40% marks in aggregate (both papers combined) to pass the subject. Previously, the criterion was 50% marks.

A public notice was issued October 3, 2023 by NMC which stated that retrospective effect cannot be given to the notification.

After hearing the submissions, the Court considered the question, "Whether 01.09.2023 notification is required to be applied retrospectively or prospectively i.e. whether the changes in 01.09.2023 notification would be applicable from 01.08.2023 onwards or from 01.09.2023 onwards only."

The Court noted that the counsel for the petitioners heavily relied on the judgements passed by the Division bench of Madras High Court and Kerala High Court to argue that the issue of  notification being retrospective.

Justice Goel opined that structural context that the nuanced position concerning the inter-relationship between decisions of High Courts across various jurisdictions must be understood.

Referring to catena of judgements, the Court said  that "the decision of one High Court is not a binding precedent for another High Court. The doctrine of Stare Decisis does not implore the judgments of one High Court to be of binding precedent insofar as other High Courts are concerned."

The bench observed that by no quantum of stretching of the doctrine of stare decisis, can judgments of one High Court be given the status of a binding precedent insofar as other High Courts are concerned. Any such attempt will go counter to the very doctrine of stare decisis and also the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court, which has interpreted the scope and ambit thereof, it added.

The Court clarified that whether there is only one decision of any High Court on a particular point or that number of different High Courts have taken identical views in that regard is not at all relevant for that purpose. Whatever may be the conclusion, the decisions cannot have the force of binding precedent on other High Courts.

"Such demiurgic status is reserved only for the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are binding on all Courts in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution. The distinction arises from the federal character of the Indian judiciary, where each High Court exercises jurisdiction over a defined territorial region and is a Court of Record under Article 215 of the Constitution," said the bench.

In the present case, the Court deferred with the view taken by the Devision bench of  Kerala High Court in National Medical Commission Vs. Antony P. Alappat and Others; [2025:KER:22334]  and the Devision bench of Madras High Court in The Controller of Examinations, Pondicherry University, Pondicherry Vs. Megha Maria Joe and other[WA-333-2024] which gave retrospective effect to the NMC notification.

The bench gave a detailed reasoning while deferring with the judgements of both the High Court. The main reason given by the Court to defer was the public notice issued on October 3, 2023 which clarified that the notification cannot be applied retrospectively.

Deferring with Kerala High Court, the Court said, the judgment "has not taken into account that the course under consideration pertains to the field of Medicine, namely the MBBS programme which, by its very nature, is a highly specialised and professional discipline. In such a sensitive domain, higher qualification standards are mandated not merely to serve individual aspirations but to safeguard the broader public interest."

The bench said that it is a settled canon that Courts ought to exercise utmost circumspection before intervening in matters of academic standards set by a statutory authority such as the NMC, particularly when those standards are rooted in considerations of public welfare and safety.

"Individual hardships, however sympathetic, cannot outweigh the collective good necessitating rigorous professional benchmarks," the Court remarked.

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-24261-2023 and CWP-25599-2023.

Mr. Tej Bahadur, Yadav, Advocate for Mr. Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-1380-2024.

Mr. S.K. Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-27009-2023 and CWP-27662-2023, CWP-1475-2024, CWP-31-2024 and CWP-33-2024.

Mr. Manbir S. Batth, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-29553-2023, CWP-1050-2024.

Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-25867-2023.

Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-3931-2025.

Mr. Sunil Kumar Rohilla, Advocate and Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-26930-2024.

Mr. Anurag Chopra, Additional Advocate General Punjab and Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Sr. DAG Punjab.

Mr. Anil Chawla, Senior Panel Counsel, UOI in CWP-24261-2023, CWP-27009-2023, CWP-27662-2023, CWP-32-2024, CWP-31-2024, CWP-33-2024, CWP-1050-2024, CWP-1380-2024, CWP-25867-2023, CWP-1475-2024 and CWP-25599-2023.

Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Senior Panel Counsel UOI in CWP-29553-2023 and CWP-796-2024.

Mr. Ravi Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel and Mr. Raywant Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent- National Medical Counsel.

Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent- Baba Farid University of Health Sciences.

Title: Jashandeep Kaur and others v. Union of India and others

Click here to read/download the order