- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Govindanaik G. Kalaghatigi v. West Patent Press Co. Ltd. And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
A Full Bench of three Judges of the High Court referred the following question to a larger Bench of five Judges: "When there is conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court, is it the later of the two decisions or the decision of the larger of the Benches which rendered those decisions that should be followed by High Courts and other Courts in the country?"
The reference arose because of divergent positions in earlier High Court decisions: a Full Bench of three Judges in J. Aramha v. Mysore Road Transport Corporation held that, where two Supreme Court decisions conflict, the later decision should be followed; whereas a Division Bench in Rudrayya v. Gangawwa doubted that approach in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Muttulal v. Radhelal and preferred the view that the decision of the larger Bench should be followed. The five-Judge Bench was convened to resolve that conflict and to give an authoritative answer.
Legal Issues Presented
- When there is conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court, should High Courts and other courts follow the later of the two decisions or the decision rendered by the larger Bench?
- How should High Courts proceed where the conflicting Supreme Court decisions are by Benches of equal size — should they follow the later decision or some other rule?
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| J. Aramha v. Mysore Road Transport Corporation | Held that when Supreme Court decisions are irreconcilable, the latest pronouncement should be followed by the High Court. | The Full Bench's holding in Aramha was examined and ultimately overruled by the five‑Judge Bench as not laying down the law correctly in view of Supreme Court authority favoring larger Benches. |
| Rudrayya v. Gangawwa | Expressed doubt about the Aramha view and, relying on Supreme Court authority, favoured following the decision of a larger Bench where irreconcilable conflicts exist. | Rudrayya's approach (preference for larger Bench decisions) was endorsed by the larger Bench as consistent with Supreme Court precedent. |
| Muttulal v. Radhelal | Stated that where two Supreme Court decisions cannot be reconciled, the Court must prefer the decision of the larger Bench even if it is earlier. | The five‑Judge Bench relied on this Supreme Court pronouncement as a central authority supporting preference for larger Bench decisions when conflicts are irreconcilable. |
| Union of India v. K.S. Subramanyam (Subramanian) | Reiterated that High Courts should, where conflict exists, try to follow opinions expressed by larger Benches in preference to smaller Benches; stated that this practice has crystallized into a rule of law. | The Court cited and followed this authority to support the rule that larger Bench decisions must be preferred when irreconcilable with smaller Bench decisions. |
| Ramjan Ali v. The State | Noted the necessity to be satisfied that there is in fact a conflict and that reconciliation should be attempted; when a later decision qualifies an earlier general rule by exceptions, there may be no true conflict. | The Bench applied this caution: before preferring one decision over another, courts must try to reconcile decisions and disregard mere general observations that do not bear on ratio. |
| Rajeswar Prasad v. State of West Bengal | Warning that Supreme Court observations should not be read as statutory enactments; reminders about limits of interpreting judicial observations as law. | Quoted to reinforce the view that precedents should be read with attention to their ratio and not as legislative text; supports careful reconciliation of decisions. |
| B. Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry | Affirmed that a decision binds in regard to its ratio and the principle laid down, not for every observation. | Used to underline that only the ratio decidendi is binding, and that general or obiter observations should not be treated as conclusive precedent. |
| Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai | Explained that judgments must be read with reference to the facts presented; casual observations and generalisations should be read judiciously by courts of co‑ordinate jurisdiction. | Relied upon to support the proposition that reconciliation should focus on ratios and that extraneous general observations should be excluded when seeking consistency between decisions. |
| Sarvate T.B.'s case and Kamala Soni's case (as cited in Muttulal) | Illustrative of two conflicting Supreme Court decisions where the larger Bench decision (Sarvate) was preferred over the smaller Bench decision (Kamala Soni) in Muttulal. | Referenced via Muttulal to demonstrate the Supreme Court's practice of preferring the larger Bench decision where reconciliation is impossible. |
| Miles v. Jarvis | English authority indicating that, when faced with two conflicting co‑ordinate decisions, a judge may follow the decision he considers better in law. | Cited by one of the High Court judges (Jagannatha Shetry, J.) to support the view that where conflicting Supreme Court decisions come from Benches of equal size, the High Court should follow the decision better in point of law rather than automatically following the later decision. |
| Baker v. White | English authority cited for the proposition that a judge may declare one of two conflicting co‑ordinate authorities as unsound and choose accordingly. | Also cited by Jagannatha Shetry, J. to support judicial discretion to select the decision considered sounder in law when confronted with equal‑sized conflicting authorities. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Bench proceeded in a structured analytical sequence:
- Identification of precedent: The Bench reviewed earlier local High Court decisions (Aramha and Rudrayya) and the controlling Supreme Court authorities (notably Muttulal v. Radhelal and Union of India v. K.S. Subramanyam) that spoke to what to do when Supreme Court decisions conflict.
- Principle extracted from Supreme Court authority: The Court emphasized that, if two Supreme Court decisions cannot be reconciled, the decision of the larger Bench should be preferred even if it is earlier in time — a principle articulated in Muttulal and reiterated in Subramanyam.
- Requirement of reconciliation: Before applying the larger‑Bench preference, the Bench stressed the necessity of attempting reconciliation. Where a later decision merely qualifies an earlier general rule by stating exceptions, there is no real conflict (citing Ramjan Ali). The Court also stressed that only the ratio decidendi (and not general or obiter observations) binds (citing Rajeswar Prasad and B. Shama Rao).
- Application to local precedent: On this basis the Bench held that Aramha (which favored the later decision) did not state the law correctly and therefore stood overruled because it conflicted with the Supreme Court’s preference for larger Bench decisions.
- Treatment of equal‑sized Bench conflicts: The Court recognized a harder question when conflicting Supreme Court decisions come from Benches of equal size. The learned Chief Justice and a majority concluded that, where Benches are of equal size and decisions are irreconcilable, the later decision should be followed. However, one separate opinion (Jagannatha Shetry, J., for himself and Venkatash, J.) agreed with the majority on the larger‑vs‑smaller Bench point but dissented on the equal‑size point, arguing that in such cases the High Court should select the decision which is better in point of law (citing Miles v. Jarvis and Baker v. White) rather than mechanically follow the later decision.
Holding and Implications
Holding:
The Full Bench answered the referred question as follows:
“If two decisions of the Supreme Court on a question of law cannot be reconciled and one of them is by a larger Bench while the other is by a smaller Bench, the decision of the larger Bench, whether it is earlier or later in point of time, should be followed by High Courts and other Courts. However, if both such Benches of the Supreme Court consist of equal number of Judges, the later of the two decisions should be followed by High Courts and other Courts.”
Implications:
- The immediate and direct effect is that the Full Bench decision in J. Aramha v. Mysore Road Transport Corporation (which had held that the later decision should be followed irrespective of Bench size) is overruled to the extent it conflicted with Supreme Court authority preferring larger Bench decisions.
- High Courts and other courts are required, where two Supreme Court decisions cannot be reconciled, to prefer the decision of the larger Bench even if that decision is earlier in time.
- Where the conflicting Supreme Court decisions emanate from Benches of equal size, the majority rule adopted by this Bench requires following the later decision; however, one judge on the Bench recorded a different view, advocating that the court should follow the decision which is better in point of law rather than being bound by chronology. This difference is recorded in the opinion and indicates a contested approach on that narrower point.
- The opinion emphasizes that reconciliation should be attempted first and that only the ratio decidendi of prior decisions is binding; general observations and obiter should be treated with caution. The ruling aligns High Court practice with the Supreme Court pronouncements cited and clarifies the order of precedence when irreconcilable conflicts exist.
Chandrashekhar, C.J:—
(For himself and Venkataramiah and Srinivasa Iyengar, JJ.)
A Full Bench of three Judges of this Court has referred to a larger Bench of five Judges the following question: When there is conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court, is it the later of the two decisions or the decision of the larger of the Benches which rendered those decisions that should be followed by High Courts and other Courts in the country?
2. A Full Bench of three Judges of this Court (which consisted of one of us) opined in J. Aramha v. Mysore Road Transport Corporation(1) that where there is a conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court, it is the later of those two decisions which must be followed by High Courts and other Courts. The correctness of this view was doubted by a Division Bench of this Court in Rudrayya v. Gangawwa(2) in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court on this point in Muttulal v. Radhelal(3). The Full Bench of three Judges which has made this reference, felt that the decision of the earlier Full Bench in Aramha's case, did not contain any reason for its opinion.
3. In Muttulal'S case (supra), the Supreme Court observed at page 1602 that if it is not possible to reconcile the observations of the Supreme Court in two decisions, the Supreme Court must prefer to follow the observations of the larger Bench even if it is earlier.
4. The above enunciation was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.S Subramanyam(4) wherein it was observed:
“The proper course for a High Court, in such a case, is to try to find out and follow the opinions expressed by larger benches of this Court in preference to those expressed by smaller benches of the Court. That is the practice followed by this Court itself. The practice has now crystallized into a rule of law declared by this Court.”
However, before applying the above rule, it is necessary to be satisfied that there is, in fact, conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court and that it is not possible to reconcile them. As observed by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Ramjan Ali v. The State(5) when a general rule enunciated in an earlier decision is qualified in a later decision by stating certain exceptions to that general rule, it cannot be said that there is any conflict between the two decisions.
5. In the light of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Muttulal's case (Supra) and Subramanyam's case (Supra), we hold that the Full Bench of three Judges in Aramha's case (Supra) did not lay down the law correctly and we overrule that decision. The answer to the question referred to this bench, should in our opinion, be as follows:—
“If two decisions of the Supreme Court on a question of law cannot be reconciled and one of them is by a larger Bench while the other is by a smaller Bench, the decision of the larger bench, whether it is earlier or later in point of time, should be followed by High Courts and other Courts. However, if both such Benches of the Supreme Court consist of equal number of Judges, the later of the two decisions should be followed by High Courts and other Courts”
Jagannatha Shetry, J.
(On behalf of himself and VENKATESH, J.)
Amid the diversity of decisions of this Court in A.J Aramha v. Mysore Road Transport Corporation, and Rudrayya v. Gangawwa, a Full Bench of three Judges of this Court has referred to a larger Bench of five Judges the following question:
“When there is conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court, is it the later of the two decisions or the decision of the larger of the Benches which rendered those decisions that should be followed by High Courts and other Courts in the country?
The question envisages two problems and it required two answers. The first one relates to a conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court; one by larger Bench and another by a smaller Bench. The second one also relates to a conflict of decisions, but by Benches consisting equal number of Judges of the Supreme Court. We agree with the opinion of the learned Chief Justice on the first part of the question, but regret to find ourselves differing upon the second part of the question.
2. Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. On the same principle the law declared by the Supreme Court is also binding on all States and its officers. The principle underlined in this Article is salutary in the interest of the administration of justice. The settled practice governing precedents, has been given the force of a rule of law. It promotes consistency which is one of the great objectives of law.
3. In this context, it may not be out of place to mention that there should not be a tendency to read the observations of the Supreme Court as statutory enactments. Hidayatullah, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Supreme Court in Rajeswar Prasad v. State of West Bengal observed:
“…. No doubt, the law declared by this Court binds Courts in India but it should always be remembered that this Court does not enact ….”
In B. Shama Rao v. Union Territory Of Pondicherry, Shelat, J. speaking for the majority view observed:
“…. It is trite to say that a decision is binding not because of its conclusion but in regard to its ratio and the principle laid down therein.”
The question presented, therefore, has to be examined on these principles.
4. In Aramha's case, a Full Bench of three Judges of this Court held that if several decisions of the Supreme Court are irreconciable, the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court should be followed by the High Court. But in Rudrayya's case, a Division Bench of this Court held that when there are conflicting judgments, one of a larger Bench and another of a smaller Bench of the Supreme Court, the High Court must prefer to follow the decision of a larger Bench. This conclusion was based on the observation in Mattulal v. Radhe Lal wherein, Bhagawati, J., speaking for the Supreme Court observed:
“But whatever be the reason it cannot be gainsaid that it is not possible to reconcile the observation in these two decisions. That being so, we must prefer to follow the decision in SARVATE T.B's case as against KAMALA SONI's case, as the former is a decision of a larger Bench than the latter. Morever, on principle, the view taken in SARVATE T.B's case commends itself to us and we think that is the right view.”
In Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai(6), Krishna Iyer, J. said:
“…. Realism dictates that a judgment has to be read, subject to the facts directly presented for consideration and not affecting those matters which may lurk in the record. Whatever be the position of subordinate Court's casual observations, generalisations and sub-silentio determinations must be judiciously read by courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction….”
In Union of India v. K.S Subramanian,(7) Beg, J. (as he then was) advised the High Courts to follow the practice that has been followed by the Supreme Court whenever there is a conflict between the views expressed by a larger Bench and a smaller Bench of the Supreme Court. The learned Judge said:
“…. But we do not think that the High Court acted correctly in skirting the views expressed by larger benches of this Court in the manner in which it had done this. The proper course for a High Court, in such a case, is to try to find out and follow the opinions expressed by larger benches of this Court in preference to those expressed by smaller benches of the Court. That is the practice followed by this Court itself. The practice has now crystallized into a rule of law declared by this Court.”
5. It may now be said without contradiction that High Courts should follow the views expressed by a larger Bench in preference to that expressed by a smaller Bench of the Supreme Court. Before adopting this rule, the High Court, if possible, should try to reconcile the diversity of decisions casting away any general observations. General observations do not decide an individual case. The Judges may not agree on general principles and yet reach a same conclusion on the issues before them. It has been said(8).
“As against person not parties to the suit, the only part of a case which is conclusive (with the exception of cases relating to status) is the general rule of law for which it is authority. This rule or proposition, the ratio decidendi may be described roughly as the rule of law applied by and acted on by the court, or the rule which the court regarded as governing the case.”
Judged from these principles, Aramha's case can no longer be said to be valid and therefore, stands overruled.
6. But the difficulty may still arise for the High Court when confronted with two inconsistent decisions of the Supreme Court by Benches consisting of equal number of Judges. Both cannot be said to be binding on Courts. But the choice is still more difficult as there is no firm general rule on the principle of precedent. The learned Chief Justice has opined that in such a case the later of the two decisions should be followed by the High Court and other Courts. This practice, according to us, is neither a rule of propriety nor a rule to promote justice. It may be a convenient rule to promote consistency and avoid uncertainty. If it is meant to promote consistency in the administration of justcie, we may as well ask the question, why not the High Court follow the former of the two rulings when both of them are of equal sanctity. Why alone the later carries the obligation and not the former? The adherence to one practice would be as good or as bad as adherence to the other.
In our view, a conservative approach to any of these, may deny justice in a given case or series of cases and those clients may not be in a position to approach the Supreme Court for the redressal of their grievances. When confronted with two inconsistant co-ordinate authorities, Kay, J. in Miles v. Jarvis(9) said:
“…. The question is which of these two decisions I should follow, and it seems to me that I ought to follow that of the Master of the Rolls as being the better in point of law.”
Jessel M.R in a like circumstance said in Baker v. White(10) that he was left with liberty to say which was not sound law. It seems to us, therefore, the High Court would be well advised to consider which of two conflicting decisions it will follow in the interest of the administration of justice and it ought to follow that which is better in point of law than in point of time.
In view of the majority opinion, the answer to the question referred to this Full Bench, is as follows:—
“If two decisions of the Supreme Court on a question of law cannot be reconciled and one of them is by a larger Bench while the other is by a smaller Bench, the decision of the larger Bench, whether it is earlier or later in point of time, should be followed by High Courts and others Courts. However, if both such Benches of the Supreme Court consist of equal number of Judges, the later of the two decisions should be followed by High Courts and other Courts.”
Alert