The Delhi High Court recently held that only the Supreme Court can give a caveat that its judgment will not be cited as a precedent.
A Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar said that such a power is not available to any other court.
“This caveat is, therefore, unique to the Supreme Court, as its decisions are constitutionally binding by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India,” the Bench explained.
It said that even if the facts of a case are similar to those in an earlier Supreme Court judgment, a lower court cannot treat that judgment as binding precedent if the Supreme Court itself has clarified that it should not apply in such circumstances. In such cases, the binding effect of Article 141 of the Constitution would not apply.
Further, the Bench reasoned that if other courts say that their judgments will not be cited as a precedent, it could result in a situation in which similarly placed litigants would receive different treatment.
“Ex facie, this would be impermissible,” the Court added.
The High Court rendered these observations as it upheld a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order. The CAT had granted a retired Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) scientist ante-dated in situ promotion under the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS). The Court ruled that his further promotion must still be assessed.
Notably, the Central government had challenged the CAT order before the High Court, arguing that the recruitment rules and Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) memoranda bar retrospective promotion. It was also that the FCS is a merit-based scheme requiring screening, interview and committee assessment.
However, the High Court rejected this argument. It held that the case was covered by a Supreme Court’s and its own ruling in Nakul Dev v Union of India. Pertinently, it was the Nakul Dev judgment of the High Court which carried a caveat that it could not be cited as precedent. The Central government had relied on this judgment.
CGSC Balendu Shekhar with advocates Krishna Chaitanya and Divyansh Singh Dev appeared for Union of India.
Advocates Sudarshan Rajan, Hitain Bajaj and Ria Setiya appeared for respondent Om Prakash.
[Read Judgment]