Judicial Discipline under Articles 141 and 144

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale has held that reiterated that all courts must strictly follow binding precedents, emphasizing that judicial discipline—not discretion—sustains the credibility of the judiciary under Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Rohan Vijay Nahar v. State of Maharashtra (2025). 

What was the Background of Rohan Vijay Nahar v. State of Maharashtra (2025) Case? 

• These appeals concerned 96 landowners in Maharashtra who challenged revenue mutations describing their lands as "private forests" vested in the State Government. 
• The State claimed that notices under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 were issued and published in the Official Gazette during the early 1960s, calling upon forest owners to show cause why regulatory measures should not be imposed. 
• The landowners contended that these notices were never personally served as required under Section 35(5) of the IFA, no inquiry was conducted, no final notification under Section 35(1) was issued, and the proceedings remained dormant for decades. 
• The Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 came into force on 30th August 1975, providing that all private forests would vest in the State, with "private forest" defined to include lands in respect of which a notice had been issued under Section 35(3) of the IFA. 
• Despite the alleged vesting in 1975, the State never took physical possession under Section 5 of the MPFA, paid no compensation, and the lands continued to be treated as private holdings with transfers being effected and permissions granted for decades. 
• From 2001 onwards, State authorities began making administrative entries in village revenue records reflecting forest proceedings and State ownership, which the landowners alleged were made without notice and in violation of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. 
• The landowners filed writ petitions seeking correction of records, declaratory relief regarding title, and restoration of entries consistent with private ownership, pleading violations of mandatory statutory procedures, natural justice, and reliance on stale notices. 
• The State defended the mutations as ministerial reflections of statutory vesting that occurred automatically on 30.08.1975 based on the Gazette publications, while raising objections regarding delay and availability of departmental remedies.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court emphasised that judicial discipline requires obedience to binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution, and that courts below must give full and faithful effect to appellate decisions, as resistance or evasion erodes predictability and weakens faith in the rule of law. 
• The Court held that the controlling precedent in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2014) established that mere issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the IFA is insufficient for vesting; the notice must be served on the owner, as "issuance" comprehends due service which alone triggers the right to object and be heard. 
• The Court found that essential statutory links were missing across all 96 appeals: there was no proof of service of Section 35(3) notices, no final notification under Section 35(1) of the IFA, no taking of possession under Section 5 of the MPFA, and no compensation exercise—actual possession remained with private owners throughout. 
• The Court rejected the State's reliance on post-hoc materials such as satellite imagery from 2016 and nineteenth-century notifications invoked for the first time on appeal, holding that administrative orders must stand or fall on the reasons originally given and that only the character of land on the appointed day (30.08.1975) is relevant. 
• The Court observed that expropriatory legislation must be construed strictly under Article 300-A of the Constitution, and when a statute prescribes a manner of doing a thing it must be done in that manner or not at all—mutation entries being ministerial cannot perfect an acquisition lacking statutory predicates. 
• The Court rejected the High Court's distinctions based on whether appellants were original or subsequent purchasers or whether construction existed, holding that the binding ratio on service and strict compliance does not turn on such immaterial differences. 
• The Court noted with concern that the impugned judgment was authored by the same Judge whose earlier contrary view had been set aside by the Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce, observing that the judgment's attempt to minimise binding precedent and distinguish on immaterial facts created an appearance of reluctance to accept precedent and constituted an unfortunate departure from the discipline of stare decisis. 
• The Court concluded that fidelity to binding precedent and the statutory scheme admitted no conclusion other than setting aside the High Court's order, as the present appeals were indistinguishable in principle from Godrej & Boyce and the High Court could not avoid the binding ratio consistently with Article 141 of the Constitution. 

How Do Articles 141 and 144 of the Indian Constitution Uphold Judicial Discipline and Hierarchy? 

• Article 141 of the Constitution of India: 
  • Article 141 provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India, thereby adopting the doctrine of stare decisis (to stand by decisions and not disturb what is settled). 
  • Only the ratio decidendi (the reason or rationale for the decision) of a Supreme Court judgement is binding, not the entire judgement, and this principle applies to all subsequent similar cases with identical issues and facts. 
  • Article 141 does not permit exceptions—once a judgement is pronounced, it automatically becomes binding precedent, and the Supreme Court cannot designate what shall not be treated as precedent. 
  • Exceptions to binding precedent include obiter dictum (observations made in passing), per incuriam (decisions ignoring relevant law), sub silentio (principles applied without consideration), and legislative provisions that can abrogate precedents. 
  • In Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagadeesan (2002), the Supreme Court held that it is impermissible for High Courts to overrule Supreme Court decisions, reinforcing that binding precedent must be faithfully followed by all subordinate courts.
• Article 144 of the Constitution of India: 
  • Article 144 provides that all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. 
  • This creates a constitutional obligation upon all civil authorities (executive and administrative bodies) and judicial authorities (subordinate courts and tribunals) to assist, support, and facilitate the Supreme Court in discharging its functions and implementing its orders. 
  • Together, Articles 141 and 144 are structural guarantees that bind the judicial system into a coherent hierarchy, ensuring that obedience to Supreme Court decisions is a constitutional duty and not a matter of personal preference, thereby preserving the unity of law and public confidence in the rule of law.