Stare decisis and revisional jurisdiction: Single Judges must follow Full Bench rulings, and tribunal orders may be revised under CPC

A Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court is bound by a Full Bench decision of the same court and cannot decline to follow it by labelling it per incuriam, except in the limited sense recognised for precedent. The article also states that an order of a District Judge functioning as the Educational Appellate Tribunal under the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975, remains subject to revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On that basis, the proper challenge is by civil revision rather than writ petition, where the tribunal acts under the statutory proviso.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Single Judge of the High Court can refuse to follow a Full Bench decision on the ground that it was rendered per incuriam. (ii) Whether a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies against an order of the District Judge functioning as the Educational Appellate Tribunal under the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975, and whether such challenge should be pursued by writ petition.

Issue (i): Whether a Single Judge of the High Court can refuse to follow a Full Bench decision on the ground that it was rendered per incuriam.

Analysis: The governing principle of stare decisis requires adherence to decisions of larger Benches within the High Court hierarchy. A decision may be treated as per incuriam only in limited situations, such as ignorance of a binding statutory provision or binding authority. Even then, a Bench of lower strength cannot decline to follow a decision of a larger Bench on that basis. The hierarchical structure of the High Court places a Single Judge below a Division Bench and a Full Bench for purposes of precedent, and judicial propriety requires obedience to the ruling of the larger Bench.

Conclusion: No. A Single Judge cannot refuse to follow a Full Bench decision of the same High Court by labelling it per incuriam.

Issue (ii): Whether a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies against an order of the District Judge functioning as the Educational Appellate Tribunal under the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975, and whether such challenge should be pursued by writ petition.

Analysis: The earlier Full Bench had already answered the question in the affirmative after examining the statutory scheme, holding that the District Judge functioning as the Educational Appellate Tribunal remains amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The later Single Judge view could not displace that binding declaration. On that basis, the proper mode of challenge to such orders is by civil revision and not by writ petition, at least where the tribunal is the District Judge functioning under the proviso to Section 10(2).

Conclusion: Yes. Such orders are challengeable by civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the writ petition was to be treated as a civil revision petition.

Final Conclusion: The binding Full Bench ruling was held to govern, the contrary Single Judge view was not followed, and the petition was converted into the appropriate revisional proceeding with incidental fee relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A Single Judge is bound by a Full Bench decision of the same High Court and cannot disregard it by describing it as per incuriam; a District Judge functioning as an Educational Appellate Tribunal under the relevant statutory proviso remains subject to revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

---