Precedent — Judicial discipline — Contradictory decisions by Co-ordinate Benches — Institutional integrity.

In a civil appeal against the order of CESTAT the Court observed the conflicting orders on identical issues by the Bench of Tribunal.

After deciding the issues on merits the Court showed their deep concern on the conduct of the two Benches of the Tribunal while deciding appeals in the cases of IVRCL Infrastructures & Projects Ltd. (2004) 166 ELT 447 and Techni Bharathi Ltd. (2006) 198 ELT 33. In spite of noticing the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in the present case, the Tribunal still thought it fit to proceed to take a view totally contrary to the view taken in the earlier judgment, thereby creating a judicial uncertainty with regard to the declaration of law involved on an identical issue in respect of the same Notification. It needs to be emphasised that if a Bench of a Tribunal, in identical fact-situation, is permitted to come to a conclusion directly opposed to the conclusion reached by another Bench of the Tribunal on an earlier occasion, it will be destructive of the institutional integrity itself. What was important is the Tribunal as an institution and not the personality of the members constituting it. If a Bench of the Tribunal wishes to take a view different from the one taken by the earlier Bench, the propriety demands that it should place the matter before the President of the Tribunal so that the case is referred to a larger Bench, for which provision exists in the Act itself. In this behalf, the Court referred to the following observations by a three-Judge Bench of the Court in case of Sub-Inspector Rooplal and Anr. v. Lt. Governor and Ors., (2000) 1 SCC 644.

“At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another Co-ordinate Bench of the same Tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the Tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of the same Tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the difference of opinion between the two Co-ordinate Benches on the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents . . . . .”

The Court directed that all the Courts and various Tribunals in the country shall follow the above salutary observations in letter and spirit.