Decisions by coordinate benches are binding on subsequent benches to ensure judicial discipline; departure requires reference to a larger bench, reinforcing the principle of uniformity in law.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. The uniformity and the certainty in law is the virtue. The comity of the Courts ensures the uniformity in decision and eradicates any sense of uncertainty in adhering to the principles of law laid down by the Courts at an earlier point of time. The judgment rendered by the Supreme Court not only binds the Courts of the country where the law is declared but also binds the coordinate Bench to ensure uniform pattern of adherence to the law so declared. The judgment rendered by a co-equal strength bench is not only binding upon a lesser strength Bench but also on the bench of equal strength. The amity and comity of adherence to a judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench is not only binding upon the Bench of equal strength but also to ensure the proprietary of the judicial discipline. The only course open to a Bench of the equal strength is to refer the matter to a larger Bench in the event of disagreement to the proposition of law laid down by the coordinate Bench at an earlier point of time. Time and again the comity of the Courts and its adherence to the judgment of the coequal strength Bench rendered previously having a binding effect on a latter coordinate Bench has been a center of debate and its conscious consideration in the legal parlance are highlighted in a catena of decisions rendered by the apex Court, one of which can be gainfully applied in case of S. Kasi Vs. State through the Inspector of Police Samaynallur Police Station Maduari District , reported in AIR 2020 SC 2921 in the following:

“31. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has taken a contrary view to the earlier judgment of learned Single Judge in Settu v. State (supra). It is well settled that a coordinate Bench cannot take a contrary view and in event there was any doubt, a coordinate Bench only can refer the matter for consideration by a larger Bench. The judicial discipline ordains so. This Court in State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. and another, (2004) 11 SCC 26, in para 339 laid down following :-

“339. Judicial discipline envisages that a coordinate Bench follow the decision of an earlier coordinate Bench. If a coordinate Bench does not agree with the principles of law enunciated by another Bench, the matter may be referred only to a larger Bench. (See Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik, (2002) 1 SCC 1] : (AIR 2002 SC 296) followed in Union of India v. Hansoli Devi, (2002) 7 SCC 273 : (AIR 2002 SC 3240). But no decision can be arrived at contrary to or inconsistent with the law laid down by the coordinate Bench. Kalyani Stores (AIR 1966 SC 1686) (supra) and K.K. Narula (supra) both have been rendered by the Constitution Benches. The said decisions, therefore, cannot be thrown out for any purpose whatsoever; more so when both of them if applied collectively lead to a contrary decision proposed by the majority.”

32. The learned Single Judge did not follow the judicial discipline while taking a contrary and diagonally opposite view to one which has been taken by another learned Single Judge in Settu v. State (supra). The contrary view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment is not only erroneous but also sends wrong signals to the State and the prosecution emboldening them to act in breach of liberty of a person.

33. We may further notice that learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment had not only breached the judicial discipline but has also referred to an observation made by the learned Single Judge in Settu v. State as uncharitable. All courts including the High Courts and the Supreme Court have