The Supreme Court of India recently drew attention towards the unwarranted consequences of inconsistency in the rulings by different benches of a same court. In a cautionary tone, the apex court categorically asserted that inconsistent rulings by different benches of the same court shake public trust, arguing that it reduces litigation to a punter’s game.
Notably, the Supreme Court made the observation on Tuesday (29th April) as it set aside a Karnataka High Court’s order which quashed a domestic violence case against the husband. The SC bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi held that the High Court’s decision was rendered in disregard of an earlier ruling which had allowed proceedings to continue against similarly placed in-laws.
The two-judge SC bench heard the appeal which was filed by the victim/complainant alleging domestic violence by her husband and in-laws. The Initial bench of the High Court declined to quash the proceedings against her in-laws but later on, a co-ordinate bench quashed the case against her husband. However, it did it without citing any reference to the previous ruling of the co-ordinate bench.
The complainant, aggrieved by the state High Court’s decision, moved to the Supreme Court.
Following the proceedings, the Supreme Court judgement set aside the High Court’s decision. Authored by Justice Bagchi, the judgement observed that courts are bound by stare decisis (precedent) to ensure uniformity.
It firmly held that coordinate benches (judges who enjoy equal authority) must either follow earlier rulings or provide reasoned distinctions for departing from them.
In the present case, the subsequent High Court bench (coordinate bench) quashed proceedings against the husband without taking into account the earlier ruling that allowed prosecution against other in-laws.
Highlighting this, the Supreme Court noted that an illogical inconsistency was created, raising a question about how the husband could be absolved while his co-accused (alleged co-perpetrators) still faced trial.
The apex court stressed, “Consistency in judicial outcomes is the hallmark of a responsible judiciary. Inconsistent decisions coming out from different benches shake public trust and reduce litigation to a punter’s game. It gives rise to various insidious sharp practices like forum shopping spoiling the clear stream of justice. Impugned order suffers from the vice of judicial caprice and arbitrariness and is liable to be set aside also on this score.”
As a result, the apex court allowed the appeal and revived the criminal proceedings against the Respondent-husband.
