Dear All,
Would like to share a recent judgement of Bombay High Court.
Decision of any High Court binding on all subordinate authorities and Tribunals through out India untill contrary view is taken by other HC
In an old judgement but useful Judgment Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Godavari Saraf held that until contrary decision is given by any other competent High Court, which is binding on a Tribunal in the relevant State, it has to proceed on the footing that the law declared by the High Court, though of another State, is the final law of the land. Which means that once a decision is given by any of the High Courts in the country and there is no contrary decision by any other High Court on the same issue then such decision of High Court will be binding on all the administrative authorities and Tribunals through out India.
I personally have seen some authorities at department level arguing that a judgement of High Court of other State is not binding on them. The following judgement makes it clear that when a view has been taken by a High Court of any State and there is no contrary view by any other High Court or Supreme Court on the same issue then such order of the High Court will be binding on all the subordinate authorities and Tribunals below the rank of High Court through out the country.
In this case a law was declared ultra vires by the Madras High Court and no contrary view was there by any other High Court, the Tribunal proceeded on the basis of the Judgment of Madras High Court, it was held by Bombay High Court as follows:
“Until contrary decision is given by any other competent High Court, which is binding on a Tribunal in the State of Bombay, it has to proceed on the footing that the law declared by the High Court, though of another State, is the final law of the land. When the Tribunal set aside the order of penalty it did not go into the question of intra vires or ultra vires. It did not go into the question of constitutionality of section 140A(3). That section was already declared ultra vires by a competent High Court in the country and an authority like an Income-tax Tribunal acting anywhere in the country has to respect the law laid down by the High Court, though of a different State, so long as there is no contrary decision of any other High Court on that question. It is admitted before us that at the time when the Tribunal decided the question, no other High Court in the country had taken a contrary view on the question of constitutionality of section 140A(3). That being the position, it is not possible for us to take the view that the Tribunal in Bombay, when it set aside the order of penalty, went into the question of the constitutionality of that section and gave a finding that it is ultra vires following the decision of the Madras High Court. What the Tribunal really did was that in view of the law pronounced by the Madras High Court it proceeded on the footing that section 140A(3) was non-existent and so the order of penalty passed thereunder cannot be sustained.”
From India, Pune
173Would like to share a recent judgement of Bombay High Court.
Decision of any High Court binding on all subordinate authorities and Tribunals through out India untill contrary view is taken by other HC
In an old judgement but useful Judgment Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Godavari Saraf held that until contrary decision is given by any other competent High Court, which is binding on a Tribunal in the relevant State, it has to proceed on the footing that the law declared by the High Court, though of another State, is the final law of the land. Which means that once a decision is given by any of the High Courts in the country and there is no contrary decision by any other High Court on the same issue then such decision of High Court will be binding on all the administrative authorities and Tribunals through out India.
I personally have seen some authorities at department level arguing that a judgement of High Court of other State is not binding on them. The following judgement makes it clear that when a view has been taken by a High Court of any State and there is no contrary view by any other High Court or Supreme Court on the same issue then such order of the High Court will be binding on all the subordinate authorities and Tribunals below the rank of High Court through out the country.
In this case a law was declared ultra vires by the Madras High Court and no contrary view was there by any other High Court, the Tribunal proceeded on the basis of the Judgment of Madras High Court, it was held by Bombay High Court as follows:
“Until contrary decision is given by any other competent High Court, which is binding on a Tribunal in the State of Bombay, it has to proceed on the footing that the law declared by the High Court, though of another State, is the final law of the land. When the Tribunal set aside the order of penalty it did not go into the question of intra vires or ultra vires. It did not go into the question of constitutionality of section 140A(3). That section was already declared ultra vires by a competent High Court in the country and an authority like an Income-tax Tribunal acting anywhere in the country has to respect the law laid down by the High Court, though of a different State, so long as there is no contrary decision of any other High Court on that question. It is admitted before us that at the time when the Tribunal decided the question, no other High Court in the country had taken a contrary view on the question of constitutionality of section 140A(3). That being the position, it is not possible for us to take the view that the Tribunal in Bombay, when it set aside the order of penalty, went into the question of the constitutionality of that section and gave a finding that it is ultra vires following the decision of the Madras High Court. What the Tribunal really did was that in view of the law pronounced by the Madras High Court it proceeded on the footing that section 140A(3) was non-existent and so the order of penalty passed thereunder cannot be sustained.”
From India, Pune
Dear Mr.Prasoon
In an article JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS – THEIR BINDING FORCE AND THEIR REVIEW By Mr. Subash Agarwal, Advocate available in the link <link outdated-removed> the issue of the binding nature of judicial precedents has been elaborately discussed. Paragraph 5 of this article deals with the issue posted by you in this thread. The following is an extract of paragraph 5 of the article above referred to. I trust that this article will be of interest to you.
"The Court held that the observations in Jayantilal's case leave no scope for doubt that the court merely observed what according to it is desirable and did not intend to lay down any principle of law making the decisions of other High Courts binding precedents for another Court. Any other construction of these observations in the above cases will lead to anomalous situation as it will have the effect of giving the decisions of any other High Court the status of law binding on all Courts or Tribunals throughout the country- a status which the Constitution by virtue of article 141, has conferred only on the judgements of
the Supreme Court. If for the sake of the uniformity, the decisions of any High Court are to be accepted as a binding precedent by all courts including other High Courts and Tribunals in the country, the very distinction between the precedent value of Supreme Court decisions and the High Court decisions will be obliterated. Such a situation is neither contemplated by the constitution nor it is in consonance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the doctrine of stare decisis."
In Commissioner of Income Tax vs.Thana electricity Supply Co, the Bombay High Court has summarised the binding nature of precedents in the following words.The following extract from that judgment touches the issue in this thread and I feel that this extract will be of interest and use to all.
"21. From the foregoing discussion, the following propositions emerge :
(a) The law declared by the Supreme Court being binding on all courts in India, the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all courts, except, however, the Supreme Court itself which is free to review the same and depart from its earlier opinion if the situation so warrants. What is binding is, of course, the ratio of the decision and not every expression found therein.
(b) The decisions of the High Court are binding on the subordinate courts and authorities or Tribunals under its superintendence throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. It does not extend beyond its territorial jurisdiction.
(c) The position in regard to the binding nature of the decisions of a High Court on different Benches of the same court may be summed up as follows :
(i) A single judge of a High Court is bound by the decision of another single judge or a Division Bench of the same High Court. It would be judicial impropriety to ignore that decision. Judicial comity demands that a binding decision to which his attention had been drawn should neither be ignored nor overlooked. If he does not find himself in agreement with the same, the proper procedure is to refer the binding decision and direct the papers to be placed before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question (see Food Corporation of India v. Yadav Engineer and Contractor, ).
(ii) A Division Bench of a High Court should follow the decision of another Division Bench of equal strength or a Full Bench of the same High Court. If one Division Bench differs from another Division Bench of the same High Court, it should refer the case to a larger Bench.
(iii) Where there are conflicting decisions of courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, the later decision is to be preferred it reached after full consideration of the earlier decisions.
(d) The decision of one High Court is neither binding precedent for another High Court nor for courts or Tribunals outside its own territorial jurisdiction. It is well settled that the decision of a High Court will have the force of binding precedent only in the State or territories on which the court has jurisdiction. In other States or outside the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court it may, at best, have only persuasive effect. By no amount of stretching of the doctrine of stare decisis, can judgments of one High Court be given the status of a binding precedent so far as other High Courts or Tribunal within their territorial jurisdiction are concerned. Any such attempt will go counter to the very doctrine of stare decisis and also the various decisions of the Supreme Court which have interpreted the scope and ambit thereof. The fact that there is only one decision of any one High Court on a particular point or that a number of different High Courts have taken identical views in that regard is not at all relevant for that purpose. Whatever may be the conclusion, the decisions cannot have the force of binding precedent on other High Courts or on any subordinate courts or Tribunals within their jurisdiction. That status is reserved only for the decisions of the Supreme Court which are binding on all courts in the country by virtue of article 141 of the Constitution.
With regards
From India, Madras
In an article JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS – THEIR BINDING FORCE AND THEIR REVIEW By Mr. Subash Agarwal, Advocate available in the link <link outdated-removed> the issue of the binding nature of judicial precedents has been elaborately discussed. Paragraph 5 of this article deals with the issue posted by you in this thread. The following is an extract of paragraph 5 of the article above referred to. I trust that this article will be of interest to you.
"The Court held that the observations in Jayantilal's case leave no scope for doubt that the court merely observed what according to it is desirable and did not intend to lay down any principle of law making the decisions of other High Courts binding precedents for another Court. Any other construction of these observations in the above cases will lead to anomalous situation as it will have the effect of giving the decisions of any other High Court the status of law binding on all Courts or Tribunals throughout the country- a status which the Constitution by virtue of article 141, has conferred only on the judgements of
the Supreme Court. If for the sake of the uniformity, the decisions of any High Court are to be accepted as a binding precedent by all courts including other High Courts and Tribunals in the country, the very distinction between the precedent value of Supreme Court decisions and the High Court decisions will be obliterated. Such a situation is neither contemplated by the constitution nor it is in consonance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the doctrine of stare decisis."
In Commissioner of Income Tax vs.Thana electricity Supply Co, the Bombay High Court has summarised the binding nature of precedents in the following words.The following extract from that judgment touches the issue in this thread and I feel that this extract will be of interest and use to all.
"21. From the foregoing discussion, the following propositions emerge :
(a) The law declared by the Supreme Court being binding on all courts in India, the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all courts, except, however, the Supreme Court itself which is free to review the same and depart from its earlier opinion if the situation so warrants. What is binding is, of course, the ratio of the decision and not every expression found therein.
(b) The decisions of the High Court are binding on the subordinate courts and authorities or Tribunals under its superintendence throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. It does not extend beyond its territorial jurisdiction.
(c) The position in regard to the binding nature of the decisions of a High Court on different Benches of the same court may be summed up as follows :
(i) A single judge of a High Court is bound by the decision of another single judge or a Division Bench of the same High Court. It would be judicial impropriety to ignore that decision. Judicial comity demands that a binding decision to which his attention had been drawn should neither be ignored nor overlooked. If he does not find himself in agreement with the same, the proper procedure is to refer the binding decision and direct the papers to be placed before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question (see Food Corporation of India v. Yadav Engineer and Contractor, ).
(ii) A Division Bench of a High Court should follow the decision of another Division Bench of equal strength or a Full Bench of the same High Court. If one Division Bench differs from another Division Bench of the same High Court, it should refer the case to a larger Bench.
(iii) Where there are conflicting decisions of courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, the later decision is to be preferred it reached after full consideration of the earlier decisions.
(d) The decision of one High Court is neither binding precedent for another High Court nor for courts or Tribunals outside its own territorial jurisdiction. It is well settled that the decision of a High Court will have the force of binding precedent only in the State or territories on which the court has jurisdiction. In other States or outside the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court it may, at best, have only persuasive effect. By no amount of stretching of the doctrine of stare decisis, can judgments of one High Court be given the status of a binding precedent so far as other High Courts or Tribunal within their territorial jurisdiction are concerned. Any such attempt will go counter to the very doctrine of stare decisis and also the various decisions of the Supreme Court which have interpreted the scope and ambit thereof. The fact that there is only one decision of any one High Court on a particular point or that a number of different High Courts have taken identical views in that regard is not at all relevant for that purpose. Whatever may be the conclusion, the decisions cannot have the force of binding precedent on other High Courts or on any subordinate courts or Tribunals within their jurisdiction. That status is reserved only for the decisions of the Supreme Court which are binding on all courts in the country by virtue of article 141 of the Constitution.
With regards
From India, Madras
Dear Mr. Harikrishnan,
thanks for your valuabale input.
the issue is very critical and complicated . I will get back to you on this later. the question is can a central govt organization like income tax, EPFO etc. have different set of rules/guidelines as per the judgement given by the high court of the respective states.
regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
thanks for your valuabale input.
the issue is very critical and complicated . I will get back to you on this later. the question is can a central govt organization like income tax, EPFO etc. have different set of rules/guidelines as per the judgement given by the high court of the respective states.
regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
Dear Mr.K.P.Sinha
You would have noticed in this Forum certain postings which point out that the different High Courts have taken different views on the contribution for EPF on the minimum wages, where the total quantum of minimum wages paid is equal to or more than the minimum wages notified but the employer is reducing the quantum of basic pay to lessen his liability under the EPF Act. It is for the EPF organisation to get a clear ruling on this issue from the Honourable Supreme Court. I think that the EPFO has moved the Honourable Supreme Court though I am not sure about it. Until then the whole issue would be in a flux. If there are conflicting views on the same or similar issues by different High Courts, the concerned Department has to move the Supreme Court and get a clear verdict.
With regards
From India, Madras
You would have noticed in this Forum certain postings which point out that the different High Courts have taken different views on the contribution for EPF on the minimum wages, where the total quantum of minimum wages paid is equal to or more than the minimum wages notified but the employer is reducing the quantum of basic pay to lessen his liability under the EPF Act. It is for the EPF organisation to get a clear ruling on this issue from the Honourable Supreme Court. I think that the EPFO has moved the Honourable Supreme Court though I am not sure about it. Until then the whole issue would be in a flux. If there are conflicting views on the same or similar issues by different High Courts, the concerned Department has to move the Supreme Court and get a clear verdict.
With regards
From India, Madras
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Madras High Court Decision on 4 yrs & 240 days .pdf