Binding precedent controls judicial discipline: a Single Judge cannot bypass a Full Bench ruling merely because a new argument is raised.

Binding precedent remains a core rule of judicial discipline: a Single Judge must follow a Full Bench ruling of the same High Court and cannot disregard it simply because counsel later raises a fresh constitutional argument. Reconsideration is permissible only where the earlier decision has been overruled, clearly diluted, or is demonstrably per incuriam for failing to notice a binding provision or precedent. The absence of an earlier Article 14 contention did not affect the force of the Full Bench ruling, because the decisive issue had already been settled. The reference for reconsideration was therefore not maintainable, and the matter was to proceed in accordance with the binding Full Bench law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Full Bench decision was binding on the learned Single Judge and whether the reference could be made for reconsideration merely because a fresh constitutional argument was raised.

Analysis: The binding force of precedent was held to be an essential rule of judicial discipline. A Single Judge is bound by a Full Bench decision of the same High Court, and a coordinate or smaller Bench cannot disregard a binding larger-Bench ruling merely because counsel advances a new argument that was not earlier pressed. Reconsideration is permissible only in narrow situations, such as when the earlier ruling has been overruled, whittled down, or is clearly per incuriam for failure to notice a binding provision or precedent. The absence of a previously raised Article 14 argument did not dilute the binding effect of the Full Bench decision, because the decisive point had already been determined.

Conclusion: The Full Bench ruling was binding on the learned Single Judge, and no valid ground existed for referring the matter for reconsideration on the basis of a fresh argument.

Final Conclusion: The reference was held not maintainable on the merits of precedent and the matter was sent back for decision by the Single Bench in accordance with the binding Full Bench law.

Ratio Decidendi: A decision of a Full Bench binds a smaller or co-equal Bench unless it has been overruled, clearly diluted, or is demonstrably per incuriam; a new argument does not by itself permit departure from binding precedent.

---