A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of conflicting decisions issued by coordinate benches of the High Court on the same set of facts and trial. A Single Judge of the Bombay High Court upheld charges framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which attained finality. Subsequently, another Single Judge disagreed and ruled that these charges should not be framed. The Supreme Court held that judicial propriety required the latter decision to be treated as a referral to a larger bench for resolution. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline, referring to earlier judgments and Rule 8 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, to resolve such conflicts.

Keywords:

Conflicting decisions; Coordinate bench; Larger bench referral; Judicial propriety; Section 302 IPC.B) CASE DETAILS

• i) Judgement Cause Title: Leonard Xavier Valdaris v. Jitendra Ramnayaran Rathod & Ors.
• ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2198 of 2024.
• iii) Judgement Date: 22 April 2024.
• iv) Court: Supreme Court of India.
• v) Quorum: Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ.
• vi) Author: Sanjiv Khanna, J.
• vii) Citation: [2024] 5 S.C.R. 400.
• viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860; Rule 8, Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960.
• ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any): None.
• x) Case is Related to Law Subject: Criminal law, judicial procedure.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal arose from conflicting orders by two Single Judges of the Bombay High Court in related criminal writ petitions concerning the same trial and facts. The issue of judicial decorum and procedural propriety was central, as one bench overturned charges framed under Section 302 IPC, previously upheld by another bench. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the second decision adhered to established principles of judicial discipline and propriety under Rule 8 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, which governs the referral of matters to larger benches.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. A Special Judge framed charges under Section 302 IPC in a criminal trial.
2. A Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 4104 of 2022, upheld these charges on 16 December 2022.
3. This decision was not challenged and attained finality.
4. Subsequently, another Single Judge, while deciding Criminal Writ Petition No. 4451 of 2022, passed a contrary order on 20 April 2023, directing that charges under Section 302 IPC not be framed.
5. Both orders pertained to the same set of facts and trial, leading to judicial conflict and ambiguity.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Can a Single Judge of the High Court disagree with another Single Judge’s decision on identical facts and trial?
2. Does judicial propriety require such disagreements to be referred to a larger bench?
3. What is the effect of Rule 8 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 in resolving such conflicts?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The appellant contended that the second Single Judge’s decision violated principles of judicial discipline and propriety.
2. The earlier decision, upholding charges under Section 302 IPC, had attained finality and could not be unilaterally overturned.
3. The appellant relied on precedent, including Lala Shri Bhagwan & Another v. Shri Ram Chand & Another ([1965] 3 SCR 218) and Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar v. State of Maharashtra ([1977] 3 SCR 513), emphasizing that conflicting opinions among coordinate benches must be resolved by referring the matter to a larger bench.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The respondents argued that the second Single Judge acted within jurisdiction in re-evaluating the framing of charges under Section 302 IPC.
2. They contended that the decision was based on legal and factual considerations, warranting deference.
3. They questioned whether the appellant could challenge the procedural propriety of the High Court’s decisions before the Supreme Court.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. A Single Judge of a High Court cannot issue a conflicting decision on identical facts and trial without referring the matter to a larger bench.
2. Rule 8 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, mandates such referrals to ensure judicial consistency and decorum.
3. Judicial propriety demands that Single Judges refrain from overruling coordinate bench decisions.

b. Obiter Dicta (If Any)

The Court emphasized the need for judicial discipline and adherence to procedural rules to maintain the credibility of the judiciary.

c. Guidelines

1. A Single Judge disagreeing with a coordinate bench must refer the matter to a Division Bench or larger bench.
2. The Chief Justice of the High Court should constitute an appropriate bench to resolve such conflicts.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces judicial propriety and the necessity of resolving conflicts through established procedures. This judgment underscores the importance of referring disputes among coordinate benches to larger benches for resolution, preserving the judiciary’s integrity.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Lala Shri Bhagwan & Another v. Shri Ram Chand & Another ([1965] 3 SCR 218; AIR 1965 SC 1767).
2. Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar v. State of Maharashtra ([1977] 3 SCR 513; (1977) 3 SCC 25).

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302.
2. Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 – Rule 8.