1. Appeals against a High Court division bench judgment that departed from earlier division bench decisions of the same court without referral to a larger bench. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 994
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
USHAKUMAR
Vs.
State of Bihar
Decided on July 23, 1997
Important Points
Judicial discipline requires that if two division benches of the same High Court take conflicting views, the matter must be referred to a larger bench. A division bench cannot ignore or override an earlier decision of the same court without referring the matter to a full bench.
Subject
Judicial Review - Conflicting Judgments
Headnote
Practice and Procedure-A Division Bench of the Patna High Court (Hon'ble Aftab Alam and Hon'ble A.N. Trivedi, JJ.) taking a view which is different from the view taken by two earlier Division Benches of the same High Court - The judgment itself sets out that normally the matter should have been referred to a larger Bench but proceeded with its judgment so that the matter may not be delayed-Judicial discipline requires that if the Division Benches of the same High Court take different view, tile matter should be referred to a larger Bench-Supreme Court remanded all appeals to High Court Patna so that the Chief Justice may constitute a Full Bench for deciding all issues raises before the Division Bench in the impugned judgment.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
judicial discipline
- reference to larger bench (Para 3)
-
judicial discipline
Table of Contents
2. Parties agreed that the matter should be referred to a full bench of the High Court due to conflicting views between division benches. (Para 3 )
3. Judicial discipline requires that conflicting views between two division benches of the same High Court be referred to a larger bench rather than being ignored. (Para 3 )
4. A division bench of a High Court cannot ignore or decide contrary to an earlier division bench's decision; it must request a reference to a full bench. (Para 3 )
5. Appeals remanded to the High Court for the Chief Justice to constitute a full bench to decide all issues raised. (Para 3 , 5 )
6. What is the requirement when two division benches of the same High Court hold conflicting views?
Judicial discipline requires that the matter be referred to a larger bench. A division bench cannot ignore or refuse to follow the decision of an earlier division bench of the same court. (Para 3 )
7. What procedure should a division bench follow if it is inclined to take a view contrary to an earlier division bench of the same court?
The division bench should make a request to the Chief Justice to refer the matter to a full bench. (Para 3 )
8. Can a division bench bypass referral to a larger bench to avoid delay?
No. The court observed that proceeding without referral to a larger bench despite conflicting views creates judicial difficulties and may generate further appeals, failing to serve the purpose of saving time. (Para 3 )
( 1 ) IA No. 2 of 1996 in CA No. 10245 of 1996 filed by Smt Kiran Sinha is allowed and she is. added as a party appellant in CA No. 10245 of 1996. The learned counsel for the parties have no objection to this order being passed.
( 2 ) LEAVE granted in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20237 of 1996.
( 3 ) IN the impugned judgment of a division bench of the Patna High court (Honble Aftab Alam and A. N. Trivedi, JJ.) dated 1/5/1995, the division bench has taken a view which is different from the view taken by the two earlier division benches of the same High court. The judgment itself sets out that normally the matter should have been referred to a larger bench; but this may further delay the matter and hence the division bench was proceeding with its judgment. This course which is taken by the division bench has created obvious difficulties. Judicial discipline requires that if two division benches of the same High court take different views, the matter should be referred to a larger Bench. One division bench cannot ignore or refuse to follow the decision of an earlier division bench of the same court and proceed to give its decision contrary to the decision given bythe earlier division bench. If it is inclined to take a different view, a request should be made to the chief justice to refer the same to a full bench. Even the purpose of saving time has not been served in the present case. The decision has merely generated these appeals which are filed in view of the conflicting views taken by two division benches. The State has also come in appeal before us. All the parties are agreed that the appropriate course would be to refer the matter to the full bench of the Patna High court. All these appeals are, therefore, remanded to the High court of Patna. The Chief Justice of that High court may constitute a full bench for deciding all issues which were raised before the division bench in the impugned judgment. Although the departure from the earlier decisions of the division bench may not be on all issues raised before the court, since the appeals are being remanded to the High court, it is desirable that the full bench, in considering all these matters, deals with all the issues which were raised and considered by the division bench in the impugned judgment.
( 4 ) IF any of the parties concerned desires to apply for any interim orders it may do so before the High court.
( 5 ) THE appeals are disposed of accordingly.
