Doctrine of merger applies where the Supreme Court expressly affirms earlier reasoning, barring reconsideration by the Full Bench.

Where the Supreme Court grants leave and expressly agrees with and affirms an earlier judgment, the earlier view and the reasons specifically approved merge into the appellate order. The absence of a detailed speaking judgment does not prevent merger if the superior court clearly records its approval of the reasoning and conclusion below. As a result, the law declared in the affirmed decision binds under Article 141, and the Full Bench could not reopen the correctness of Dr. Vishwajeet Singh after its affirmation in the Supreme Court's order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the decision in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh stood affirmed by the Supreme Court and merged in the order dated 19 January 2017, so as to bar reconsideration of its correctness by the Full Bench.

Analysis: The order of the Supreme Court was passed after grant of leave and recorded an express agreement with the view taken in the earlier judgment, followed by affirmation of that judgment. In such a situation, the operative result and the reasons or legal view expressly approved by the Supreme Court merge in its appellate order. The absence of elaborate reasons does not prevent merger where the superior court has clearly approved the earlier view. Article 141 binds courts to the law declared by the Supreme Court, and a speaking order is not required where the appellate order itself contains an express approval of the reasoning and conclusion adopted below.

Conclusion: The decision in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh stood affirmed and merged in the Supreme Court's order, and the Full Bench could not revisit its correctness.

---