The Supreme Court of India has recently highlighted a pressing concern regarding the inconsistency in judicial decisions, particularly when different benches of the same court deliver conflicting judgments on similar issues. This inconsistency not only undermines the principle of legal certainty but also erodes public confidence in the judicial system, transforming litigation into a gamble rather than a pursuit of justice.
In a notable case, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of conflicting decisions by the Karnataka High Court in a domestic violence matter. The complainant had filed cases against her husband and in-laws. While one bench of the High Court refused to quash the proceedings against the in-laws, another bench later quashed the case against the husband without acknowledging the earlier decision. This lack of coherence raised serious questions about judicial propriety and the adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis, which mandates that courts follow established precedents to ensure consistency in the law.
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, set aside the High Court's decision to quash the case against the husband. The apex court emphasized that co-ordinate benches, or benches of equal strength, are bound by the decisions of each other unless there are compelling reasons to deviate, which must be clearly articulated. The failure of the second bench to reference or distinguish the earlier ruling was seen as a breach of judicial discipline, leading to inconsistent outcomes that confuse litigants and the public alike.
Such inconsistencies have broader implications beyond individual cases. They foster an environment where litigants may engage in "forum shopping," seeking out benches perceived to be more favorable to their case, thereby compromising the impartiality and fairness of the judicial process. This practice not only burdens the judiciary with redundant litigation but also diminishes the predictability of legal outcomes, a cornerstone of the rule of law.
The Supreme Court's observations underscore the necessity for a unified and coherent judicial approach. Consistency in legal decisions ensures that similar cases are treated alike, reinforcing the principle of equality before the law. It also provides clarity and predictability, enabling individuals and entities to understand and comply with legal obligations and rights. When courts deliver divergent judgments on similar issues without adequate justification, it creates uncertainty and undermines the credibility of the judiciary.
To address this issue, the Supreme Court has called for stricter adherence to judicial precedents and greater coordination among benches. Judges are encouraged to thoroughly examine existing rulings and provide reasoned explanations when deviating from established decisions. Such measures are vital to maintaining the integrity of the legal system and ensuring that justice is administered fairly and consistently.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's intervention highlights a critical challenge facing the Indian judiciary: the need for consistency in judicial decisions. By reinforcing the importance of following precedents and ensuring coherence across different benches, the court aims to restore public trust in the legal system and uphold the foundational principles of justice. Addressing this issue is essential to prevent litigation from becoming a speculative endeavor and to preserve the sanctity of the judiciary as a pillar of democracy.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.