JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE: WHAT APEX COURT HAS SAID

The doctrine of judicial discipline is of crucial importance in judicial pronouncements and is a code of self discipline to be followed by various courts and judicial forums. It hinges on the concept of stare decisis, i.e., lower courts must follow rulings from higher courts; failing to do so is judicial indiscipline or creating chaos.

The principle of judicial discipline ensures that the legal system functions coherently and predictably, enhances confidence in the judiciary and the administration of justice and guards against bias, prejudice and arbitrary rulings.

Supreme Court Pronouncements on Judicial Discipline

• In M/s GODREJ SARA LEE LTD. Versus THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICERCUM- ASSESSING AUTHORITY & ORS. - 2023 (2) TMI 64 - Supreme Court, it was held that decisions rendered by Appellate Tribunal were binding not only assessing officer but on revisionary authority also. Therefore, assessing officer had no option but to pass assessment order in terms of this decision. Revisionary authority being also bound by said order, was unjustified in branding assessment order as suffering from illegality and impropriety. It demonstrated his thorough lack of understanding of principle regulating exercise of suo motu revisional power by a quasi-judicial authority. In addition it was also a breach of principle of judicial discipline, while confronted with orders passed by a superior Tribunal/Court. It is settled that unless discipline of adhering to decisions of higher authorities is maintained, there would be utter chaos in administration of tax laws apart from undue harassment to assessees.

• In M/s TRIMURTHI FRAGRANCES (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FINANCE) & ORS. - 2022 (9) TMI 895 - Supreme Court, constitution bench of Apex Court ruled that Larger Bench judgment shall prevail irrespective of number of judges in majority or constituting the majority. For example, a judgment of seven judge bench with 4-3 majority would prevail over a five member bench with unanimous (5-0) decision.

It was held that in view of Article 145(5) of the Constitution of India, concurrence of a majority of the judges at the hearing will be considered as a judgment or opinion of the Court. The majority decision of a Bench of larger strength would prevail over the decision of a Bench of lesser strength, irrespective of the number of Judges constituting the majority.

• In M/s GAMMON INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI - 2011 (7) TMI 17 - Supreme Court, Apex Court observed as follows—

'Before parting, we wish to place on record our deep concern on the conduct of the two Benches of the Tribunal deciding appeals in the cases of IVRCL INFRASTRUCTURES & PROJECTS LTD. Versus CC., CHENNAI (SEA) - 2004 (2) TMI 96 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI and TECHNI BHARATHI LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI-II - 2006 (1) TMI 345 - CESTAT, BANGALORE. After noticing the decision of a co-ordinate Bench in the present case, they still thought it fit to proceed to take a view totally contrary to the view taken in the earlier judgment, thereby creating a judicial uncertainty with regard to the declaration of law involved on an identical issue in respect of the same Exemption Notification. It needs to be emphasised that if a Bench of a Tribunal, in identical fact-situation, is permitted to come to a conclusion directly opposed to the conclusion reached by another Bench of the Tribunal on earlier occasion, that will be destructive of the institutional integrity itself. What is important is the Tribunal as an institution and not the personality of the members constituting it. If a Bench of the Tribunal wishes to take a view different from the one taken by the earlier Bench, the propriety demands that it should place the matter before the President of the Tribunal so that the case is referred to a Larger Bench, for which provision exists in the Act itself. . .'

Thus, it can be said that judicial discipline expects that the bench should refer the matter to the President of Tribunal where it wishes to take a different/contrary view from an earlier decision.

• In ISHIKAWAJIMA-HARIMA HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX - 2007 (1) TMI 91 - Supreme Court, while interpreting a taxing statute, legal section should be kept in mind. It was held that having regard to the contextual interpretation and in view of the fact that the court is dealing with a taxation statute, the legal fiction must be construed having regard to the object it seeks to achieve.

• In Sub Inspector Rooplal Versus LT. Governor Thru. Secy. Delhi - 1999 (12) TMI 868 - Supreme Court, Apex Court observed as follows—

'At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another Coordinate Bench of the same Tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline fat all, the subsequent Bench of the Tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the Coordinate Bench of the same Tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a Larger Bench so that the difference of opinion between the two Coordinate Benches on the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every presiding officer of a judicial forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again that precedent law must be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate court is bound by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. A Coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it to a Larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement.'  [Also refer: Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. - 2003 (4) TMI 33 - KERALA High Court; AFFECTION INVESTMENTS LTD. Versus A. CIT - 2009 (2) TMI 88 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT.

• In CCE, Mumbai Versus M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. - 2014 (9) TMI 225 - Supreme Court, where there were conflicting decisions by Cestat benches, it was held that Cestat bench of same strength cannot decide appeal disagreeing with the view taken by earlier bench. Appropriate course for the second bench is to refer the matter to the larger bench. Since two benches of Cestat of same strength had taken two conflicting views, both order were set aside and the president of Cestat was advised to constitute a larger bench of three members to decide the issue.