The decision of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court, whether earlier or later, should be followed by High Courts and other Courts in case of a conflict between two decisions.

CHANDRASHEKHAR, C. J.

( 1 ) A Full Bench of three Judges of this Court has referred to a larger Bench of five Judges the following question:

"when there is conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court, is it the later of the two decisions or the decision of the larger of the Benches which rendered those decisions that should be followed by High Courts and other Courts in the Country?

( 2 ) A Full Bench of three Judges of this Court (which consisted one of us) opined in J. Aramha v. Mysore Road Transport Corporation (1974) 1 Kant LJ 344 that where there is a conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court, it is the later of those two decisions which must be followed by High Courts and other courts. The correctness of this view is doubted by a Division Bench of this Court in Rudrayya v. Gangawwa (1976) 1 Kant LJ 409 in view of the pronouncement of the supreme Court on this point in Mattulal v. Radhelal AIR1974 SC 1596 , (1974 )2 SCC365 , [1975 ]1 SCR127 , 1974 (6 )UJ348 (SC ). The Full Bench of three Judges which has made this reference, felt that the decision of the earlier Full bench in Aramhas case, did not contain any reason for its opinion.

( 3 ) IN Mattulal's case (supra), the Supreme Court observed at page that if it is not possible to reconcile the observations of the Supreme Court in two decisions, the Supreme Court must prefer to follow the observations of the larger Bench even if it is earlier.

( 4 ) THE above enunciation was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K. S. Subramanyarn AIR1976 SC 2433 , (1977 )I LLJ5 SC , (1976 )3 scc677 , [1977 ]1 SCR87 , 1976 (1 )SLJ539 (SC ), 1976 (8 )UJ717 (SC ) wherein it was observed:

"the proper course for a High Court, in such a case, is to try to find out and follow the opinions expressed by larger benches of this Court in preference to those expressed by smaller benches of the Court. That is the practice followed by this Court itself. The practice has now crystallized into a rule of law declared by this Court".

However, before applying the above rule, it is necessary to be satisfied that there is, in fact, conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court and that it is not possible to reconcile them. As observed by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Ramian A v. The State AIR1977 All 105 when a general rule enunciated in an earlier decision is qualified in a later decision by stating certain exceptions to that general rule, it cannot be said that there is any conflict between the two decisions.

( 5 ) IN the light of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Mattulars case (supra) and subramanyam's case (supra) we hold that the Full Bench of three judges in Aramha's case (supra) did not lay down the law correctly and we overrule that decision. The answer to the question referred to this bench, should in our opinion, be as follows:

"if two decisions of the Supreme Court on a question of law cannot be reconciled and one of them is by a larger bench while the other is by a smaller Bench, the decision of the larger Bench whether it is earlier or later in point of time, should be followed 'by High Courts and other Courts. However, if both such Benches of the Supreme Court consist of equal number of Judges, the later of the two decisions should be followed by High Courts and other Courts".

Jagannatra Shetty, J.

( 6 ) AMID the diversity of decisions of this court in A. J. Aramha v. Mysore Road Transport Corporation, and Rudrayya v. Gangawwa, a Full Bench of three Judges of this Court has referred to a larger Bench of five judges the following question:

"when there is conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court, is it the later of the two decisions or the decision of the larger of the Benches which rendered those decisions that should be followed by High Courts and other Courts in the country?"

The question envisages two problems and it requires two answers. The first one relates to a conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court; one

Click Here to Read the rest of this document