Judges do not sit to settle scores but to settle law: Supreme Court reasserts Judicial Discipline and Obedience to Precedents

Supreme Court: The bench of Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ served a powerful reminder to the Courts of the core duty of respecting precedents and maintaining judicial discipline, and observed that a judgment that attempts to resist binding authority undermines the unity of law, burdens litigants with avoidable expense and delay, and invites the perception that outcomes depend on the identity of the judge.

“In a constitutional judiciary, it is the law, as declared, that brings the conversation to a close. 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 strong observations came in a batch of 96 civil appeals arises from the Bombay High Court’s judgment dated 27-09-2018 refusing to interfere with the revenue mutations and annotations that described the subject lands as affected by forest proceedings and as having vested in the State on the ground that notices said to have been issued around 1960 and published in the Official Gazette were sufficient foundation to treat the lands as private forest under the acquisition regime.

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court, in the impugned judgment, avoided the binding precedent laid down in was Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 3 SCC 430 and called it “an unfortunate departure from the discipline of stare decisis.”

The Court noted that one member of the Division Bench of the High Court had authored the decision in Oberoi Constructions Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 311 that was later overturned by the Supreme Court in Godrej and Boyce (supra).

Notable observations of Supreme Court on Judicial Discipline, Hierarchy and Obedience to Precedent

• The judiciary draws its strength from discipline and not dominion.

• The High Courts in India possess a wide jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court of India remains the final interpreter of law. Article 141 of the Constitution of India1 declares that the law laid down by this Court binds every court in the country.

• Article 144 of the Constitution obliges all authorities, civil and judicial, to act in aid of this Court. These are not ceremonial recitals. They are the structural guarantees that convert dispersed adjudication into a single system that speaks with one voice and commands public confidence.

• When a superior court reverses, modifies, or remands, the court below must give full and faithful effect to that disposition. The authority to decide on appeal carries the authority to require compliance, for without obedience, the hierarchy would become an empty form. Resistance or evasion does not merely disserve a party before the court, it erodes predictability, multiplies litigation, and weakens faith in the rule of law.

• Judicial discipline is the ethic that turns hierarchy into harmony. It requires courtesy, restraint, and obedience to binding precedent even where a judge is personally unpersuaded. The lawful course is to apply the precedent and, if needed, record reasons for inviting a larger Bench to reconsider it. The unlawful and unjust course is to distinguish in name while disregarding in substance or to recast issues in order to sidestep a rule that binds.

• “Stare decisis et non quieta movere” which means to stand by decisions and not to disturb settled matters, is not a slogan but a safeguard of equality before the law. Judges do not sit to settle scores. The gavel is an instrument of reason and not a weapon of reprisal. A vindictive stance is incompatible with the oath to uphold the Constitution and the law.

• Judges across our country must remember that a reversal on appeal is not a personal affront but the ordinary operation of a constitutional hierarchy that corrects error and settles law.

• Respect for the senior jurisdiction is not subservience. It is an acknowledgment that all courts pursue a common enterprise to do justice according to law.

• Courts speak through reasons, and reasons that align with binding authority preserve both legality and legitimacy of the judiciary. Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution make obedience a constitutional duty and not a matter of personal preference.

The case that led to the Supreme Court serving a strong reminder to Judiciary

In the case at hand, the appellants were private landowners in Maharashtra whose lands were described as “forests”. The State asserted that in the 1960s, it issued and published notices under Section 35(3) of the Forest Act, 1927 (IFA), calling for objections to regulate the lands as forests. Such notices were said to have been addressed to the appellants and to other similarly placed private landholders in the concerned districts.

The landowners, however, alleged that:

1. the notices were not personally served as contemplated by Section 35(5) of the IFA,

2. no inquiry on objections was ever held,

3. no proceedings culminated in a final notification under Section 35(1) of the IFA, and

4. the proceedings remained dormant for extended periods.

5. the State did not take possession, pay compensation, or conduct any statutory inquiries even after the coming into force of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 (MPFA) on 30-08-1975 and that the lands continued to be treated as private property in revenue and planning records.

The State, however, contended that because of the 1960s notices and the inclusive definition of “private forest” in Section 2(f)(iii) of the MPFA, the lands vested in the State by operation of law.

Thereafter, the State began annotating revenue records around 2001 but the landowners argued that the mutations were entered without notice, marking the State as owner. The State, however, argued that the entries were ministerial acts reflecting legal consequences.

The annotations and mutations led to the following collateral effects:

1. Sub-Registrars declined registration of instruments having regard to departmental instructions.

2. Possession nonetheless remained with private parties.

3. No award of compensation was made.

4. Departmental remedies under the MLRC were invoked by several landholders but many such proceedings did not reach adjudication.

As a result, writ petitions were filed before the Bombay High Court seeking correction of land records, declaration of ownership/title, and restoration of entries showing private ownership.

Bombay High Court’s findings

The High Court held that all “private forests” in Maharashtra automatically vested in the State on 30-08-1975 under Section 3 of the MPFA, making any later transactions or claims of ownership ineffective. It also accepted the State’s assertion that notices under Section 35(3) of the IFA had been duly issued and served and, in some cases, that final notifications already existed before vesting. Further, relying on official records such as gazette publications, registers, and panchanamas, it found no credible challenge from the petitioners, many of whom were subsequent purchasers, and placed the burden on them to disprove service.

The High Court also distinguished Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 3 SCC 430 as fact-specific and inapplicable, upheld the mutation entries as ministerial reflections of lawful vesting, rejected arguments based on procedural lapses or small-plot exclusions, and dismissed most petitions as belated or commercially motivated, emphasizing the need to protect forest lands.

Supreme Court’s Findings

Applying Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 3 SCC 430 to the present case, the Supreme Court found identical deficiencies that led the Supreme Court to hold that vesting had not occurred in this case as well, namely:

1. There is no proof of service of any notice under Section 35(3) of the IFA on the then owners.

2. There is no final notification under Section 35(1) of the IFA. Possession has remained with private owners throughout.

3. No contemporaneous action was taken under Sections 4, 5, 6 or 7 of the MPFA Act.

Observing that any one missing step would defeat vesting, the Court noted that in the case at hand, several mandatory steps are absent. Any one missing step would defeat vesting.

The Court also observed that,

“Expropriatory legislation must be construed strictly and Article 300-A of the Constitution requires that no person is deprived of property save by authority of law. When a statute prescribes a manner of doing a thing, it must be done in that manner or not at all.”

Refusing to accept the distinctions drawn by the High Court, the Court held that the binding ratio on service, on the need for a live process, and on strict compliance does not turn on whether an appellant is an original owner or a subsequent purchaser. It also does not turn on whether construction has occurred on the land. The State itself has, on earlier occasions, recognised that subsequent purchasers cannot be prejudiced by undisclosed proceedings which they had no means to discover.

“To hold that a subsequent purchaser is in a worse position than one who developed land would invert the logic of the statute and would reward illegality while penalising restraint. We reject that approach.”

Holding that the High Court’s judgment was contrary to binding precedent in Godrej & Boyce, the Supreme Court also held that the High Court misread the Gazette, treated mutations as creating title, and ignored mandatory legal requirements. Observing that “fidelity to binding precedent and to the statutory scheme admits of no other conclusion than that the impugned order must be set aside”, the Court set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 27.09.2018.

Consequently, all mutation entries and declarations treating lands as private forests were quashed and revenue records were directed to be corrected accordingly. Liberty was also granted to the State to initiate fresh proceedings under relevant statutes, following due process of law.

[Rohan Vijay Nahar v. State of Maharshtra, CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5454 OF 2019, decided on 07-11-2025]

*Judgment authored by: Justice Vikram Nath

---

Advocates who appeared in this case:

Appellant(s): Mr. Vineet Naik, Sr. Adv., Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vineet B. Naik, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, Sr. Adv., Ms. Shyel Trehan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anil Kaushik, Sr. Adv., Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Madhavi Divan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Atul Chitale, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Atul Y. Chitale, Sr. Adv., Mr. R. Chandrachud, AOR, Mr. Amey Nabar, Adv., Mr. Dhuli Venkata Krishna, Adv., Mr. Aryan Singh, Adv., Mr. Kunal Vajani, Adv., Mr. Sukand Kulkarni, Adv., Mr. Shubhang Tandon, Adv., Ms. Shraddha Chirania, Adv., Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR, Mr. Anish R. Shah, AOR, Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR, Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv., Mr. Sukand Kulkarni, Adv., Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv., Mr. Vignesh Singh, Adv., Ms. Apurva, Adv., Mr. Aditya S. Jadhav, Adv., Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, Adv., Mr. Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Adv., Mr. Neelam Prasad, Adv., Mr. Archit Jain, Adv., Ms. Runjhun Garg, Adv., Dr. Rukma George, Adv., Mr. Himanshu Vats, Adv., Mr. Sumit Kumar Siddharth, Adv., Mr. Angad Pahal, Adv., Mr. Yudhvir Dalal, Adv., Mr. Lavam Tyagi, Adv., Mr. Kumar Arjun Toppo, Adv., Mr. Ishaan George, AOR, Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR, Ms. Sayesha Gambhir, Adv., Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, AOR, Mr. Aditya Malhotra, Adv., Mr. Sankalp Mahindru, Adv., Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR, Mrs. Pradnya S. Adgaonkar, Adv., Mr. Anoop Raj, Adv., Ms. Monisha Mane Bhangale, Adv., Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR, Mr. Pranav Sarthi, Adv., Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv., Ms. Harbani Shinh, Adv., Ms. Apoorva Singh, Adv., Ms. Apoorva Jain, Adv., Mr. Ayush Raj, Adv., Ms. Prachi Dhingra, Adv., Mr. Utkarsh Vatsa, Adv., Mr. Udit Bajpai, Adv., Mr. Dhaval Mehrotra, Adv., Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Adv., Mr. Rahul Garg, Adv., Ms. Aditi Desai, Adv., Mr. Tamilarasan Varadarajan, Adv., Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv., Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv., Mr. Kamlesh Vasant Ghumre, Adv., Ms. Juhi Bhargava, Adv., Mr. Gopal Krishna, Adv., Mr. Saket Mone, Adv., Mr. Vishesh Kalra, Adv., Ms. Anshula Grover, Adv., Ms. Smriti Churiwal, Adv., Mr. Jaivir Kant, Adv., Ms. Anoushka Deo, Adv., Ms. Sonia Sharma, Adv., Ms. Riya Wasade, Adv., Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Adv., Ms. Sonali Jaitley Bakhshi, Adv., Mr. Mayank Mishra, Adv., Ms. Manmilan Sidhu, Adv., Mr. Ankit Tyagi, Adv., Ms. Bhumika Bhatnagar, Adv., Mr. Jaiyesh Bakhshi, Adv., Mr. Atharva Koppal, Adv., Ms. Sudiksha Saini, Adv., Ms. Prachi Dubey, Adv., Mr. Harsh Khabar, Adv., Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Adv., Mr. Yashodhan Chandurkar, Adv., Ms. M. Jain, Adv., Mr. Satyajit Saha, Adv., Mr. Upmanyu Tewari, Adv., Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv., Mr. Amit K. Pathak, Adv., Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Adv., Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv., Mr. Pratik Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Puneet Sharma, Adv., Mr. Parth Johri, Adv., Mr. Sanchit Agrahari, Adv., Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR, Mr. Ashwin Joseph, Adv., Mr. Vishesh Kalra, Adv., Mr. Ooril Panchal, Adv., Mr. Neel Kamal Mishra, Adv., Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, Adv., Mr. Syed Faraz Alam, Adv., Mr. Atharva Gaur, Adv., Mr. Aayushman Aggarwal, Adv., Ms. Ayesha Choudhary, Adv., Ms. Kirti Sharma, Adv., Mr. Rushabh Tripathi, Adv., Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv., Ms. Shweta Singh Parihar, Adv., Mr. Shartak Sharma, Adv., Mr. Vedchetan Patil, Adv., Mr. Sindhu Kotian, Adv., Dr. Rukma George, Adv., Mr. Archit Jain, Adv., Mr. Ashhab Khan, Adv., Mr. Aman Ahluwalia, Adv., Mr. Pranaya Goyal, AOR, Mr. Rajat Sehgal, AOR, Mr. Aman Varma, AOR, Mr. Ravi Tyagi, AOR

Respondent(s): Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv., K. Parameshwwar, S. Adv., Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Ravindra Sadanand Chingale, AOR, Navneet R., AOR, Ishaan George, AOR, T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR, Anagha S. Desai, AOR, Ravindra Sadanand Chingale, AOR, Navneet R., AOR, Ishaan George, AOR, T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Anagha S. Desai, AOR, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv., Shrirang B. Varma, Adv., Naman Tandon, Adv., Bharat Bagla, Adv., Karan Sachdev, Adv., Shivali Shah, Adv., Aditya Krishna, Adv., Adarsh Dubey, Adv., Adarsh Dubey, Adv., Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv., Aniket Tater, Adv., Alankrita Sinha, Adv., Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Adv., Runjhun Garg, Adv., Himanshu Vats, Adv., Angad Pahal, Adv., Lavam Tyagi, Adv., Vedchetan Patil, Adv., Sindhu Kotian, Adv., Dr. Rukma George, Adv., Archit Jain, Adv., Ashhab Khan, Adv., Aman Ahluwalia, Adv., Satyajit A. Desai, Adv., Satyajit A. Desai, Adv., Amit K. Pathak, Adv., Amit K Pathak, Adv., Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Adv., Sachin Singh, Adv., Pratik Kumar Singh, Adv., Puneet Sharma, Adv., Parth Johri, Adv., Sanchit Agrahari, Adv.

Buy Constitution of India  HERE