The Supreme Court on Monday underlined the fundamental duty of judges to uphold binding precedents, cautioning that attempts to circumvent established judicial authority convey a “measure of pettiness” incompatible with the detachment and impartiality required of the judiciary. The court emphasized that adherence to precedent ensures fairness, maintains unity in the legal system, and protects litigants from avoidable costs and delays.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale highlighted that the judiciary is not a forum for personal vindication. “Judges do not sit to settle scores, and a vindictive stance is wholly incompatible with the oath to uphold the Constitution and the law,” the bench observed. “The gavel is an instrument of reason, not a weapon of reprisal.” According to the court, the principle of collegiality—a shared commitment to justice among judges—is inseparable from judicial independence. Reversals on appeal are part of the normal functioning of a constitutional hierarchy, designed to correct errors and clarify the law, and should never be perceived as personal affronts.

The bench stressed that respect for senior jurisdiction does not amount to subservience; rather, it reflects an acknowledgment that all courts operate within a single, coherent judicial enterprise. This perspective ensures that litigants can have confidence that the application of law does not depend on the identity of the presiding judge, but on the reasoned application of settled principles.

The Supreme Court’s observations were made while setting aside a 2018 judgment of the Bombay High Court that had denied relief to landholders challenging annotations and mutation entries treating their properties as “private forests” under the Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act (MPFA), 1975. The apex court found that the high court had attempted to distinguish the binding ratio of its earlier decision in Godrej and Boyce (2014) on grounds that the Supreme Court considered immaterial. This, the bench noted, amounted to an impermissible departure from stare decisis.

“In a constitutional judiciary, it is the law, as declared, that brings the conversation to a close,” the court reiterated. “We restate the simple duty of courts: apply precedent as it stands and give effect to appellate directions as they are framed. In that discipline lies the confidence of litigants and the credibility of courts.” The bench emphasized that failure to follow binding precedent can undermine the unity of law, impose unnecessary burdens on litigants, and create the impression that judicial outcomes are contingent on the particular judge hearing the case.

The Supreme Court also clarified procedural shortcomings in the case at hand. The MPFA requires that for vesting of private forests to occur based on a notice issued under the Indian Forest Act, the notice must be served on the landholder, allowing the person an opportunity to object and triggering a statutory inquiry. In the present cases, the apex court observed, there was no evidence of proper service, no final notification, no formal taking of possession, and no process for compensation. These deficiencies rendered the State’s claim of vesting unsustainable.

Furthermore, the court noted that the high court had proceeded on assumptions unsupported by the record and had effectively revived reasoning that had previously been rejected. While the Supreme Court did not attribute any motive, it underscored that minimizing a binding ratio, ignoring procedural steps, or distinguishing on immaterial facts creates an appearance of reluctance to apply settled law. Such conduct, the bench warned, diminishes the credibility of the judiciary and erodes public confidence in the legal system.

By allowing the appeals, quashing the high court judgment, and directing the correction of revenue records, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that judicial decisions must respect precedent. “In the discipline of applying precedent lies the confidence of litigants and the credibility of courts,” the bench concluded, reinforcing that judicial pettiness has no place in a constitutional system committed to the rule of law.

The judgment serves as a stern reminder to the judiciary that the application of law should never be swayed by personal preferences or attempts to sidestep established authority. Upholding precedent is not merely a procedural obligation—it is the cornerstone of a unified, predictable, and fair legal system.