Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court has clarified that when faced with two inconsistent decisions of the apex court, High Courts cannot arbitrarily follow one while disregarding the other. Instead, they must attempt to reconcile both rulings and respect their binding nature. A division bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed: "If two decisions of this Court appear inconsistent with each other, the High Courts are not to follow one and overlook the other, but should try to reconcile and respect them both....and follow that decision whose facts appear more in accord with those of the case at hand."

Reconciling Precedents: A Judicial Imperative

The court referred to the well-established principle laid down by Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathern, 1901 AC 495, reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Punjab Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Commr. of Income Tax, Lahore, AIR 1940 PC 230: "…… every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions, which may be found there, are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed or qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found.”  However, the bench also noted that in earlier decisions, the Supreme Court has held that High Courts must follow the earlier precedent when confronted with conflicting decisions by coordinate benches. In UT of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, the Supreme Court reiterated:  "..when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 6805. The High Courts, of course, will do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before it."

Harmonizing Judicial Conflicts

The judgment laid down a structured approach for High Courts to adopt when confronted with conflicting Supreme Court decisions:

1. Attempt to Reconcile: High Courts must first explore whether the conflicting judgments can be harmonized in a manner that upholds both rulings without discarding either.

2. Examine the Facts: Courts must analyze which decision aligns more closely with the facts of the case before them.

3. Contextual Application: If reconciliation is not possible, the ruling that is more contextually relevant and factually applicable must be given precedence.

4. Follow the Earlier Ruling with Caution: While the general rule dictates that the earlier ruling must be followed, courts must ensure that it remains applicable in light of subsequent legal developments.

The Supreme Court emphasized that a mechanical application of the 'earlier decision binding' rule may not always lead to just results. Instead, courts must examine the specific facts of each ruling to determine which precedent aligns more closely with the case before them. This approach ensures consistency in judicial application and prevents selective reliance on one precedent over another without sufficient justification.

Cause Title: M/S A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation V. The Tahsildar & Ors. etc.

Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 274

Case No: Civil Appeal No.s 4526-4527 OF 2024

Bench: Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice R Mahadevan

[Read/Download order]