Inconsistent Decisions From Different Benches Shake Public Trust In Judiciary, Make Litigation A Punter's Game : Supreme Court

Noting that inconsistency in judicial decisions undermines the clear stream of justice, the Supreme Court set aside a Karnataka High Court's order quashing a domestic violence case against the husband, emphasizing that the decision was rendered in disregard of an earlier ruling which had allowed proceedings to continue against similarly placed in-laws. The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the appeal filed by the victim/complainant who alleged domestic violence by her husband and in-laws. While one bench of the High Court refused to quash the case against her in-laws, later on, a co-ordinate bench quashed a case against her husband without reference to the previous ruling of the co-ordinate bench. Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the complainant approached the Supreme Court. Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Bagchi observed that courts are bound by stare decisis (precedent) to ensure uniformity. Co-ordinate benches (judges of equal authority) must either follow earlier rulings or provide reasoned distinctions for departing from them. Because the subsequent High Court bench quashed proceedings against the husband without acknowledging the earlier ruling that allowed prosecution against other in-laws, the Court noted that an illogical inconsistency was created, raising a question about how the husband could be absolved while his co-accused (alleged co-perpetrators) still faced trial. “Though the order refusing to quash the proceeding against some of the in-laws was passed earlier, it is inexplicable why there is no reference to the said order in the impugned order quashing proceeding against the respondent-husband. It was incumbent on the Judge while quashing the proceeding against the respondent husband to refer to the earlier decision of the co-ordinate bench and distinguish the reasons therein to arrive at a different conclusion. Failure to do so infracts judicial propriety and discipline. Consistency in judicial outcomes is the hallmark of a responsible judiciary. Inconsistent decisions coming out from different benches shake public trust and reduce litigation to a punter's game. It gives rise to various insidious sharp practices like forum shopping spoiling the clear stream of justice. Impugned order suffers from the vice of judicial caprice and arbitrariness and is liable to be set aside also on this score.”, the court said. In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal and revived the criminal proceedings against the Respondent-husband. Case Title: Renuka Versus State of Karnataka and Anr.Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 594Click here to read/download the judgmentAppearance: For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Rudrali Patil, Adv. [arguing counsel] Mr. Shaantanu Devansh, Adv. Mr. Suhas Hosamani, Adv. Ms. Rushika Patil, Adv. Mr. Sabeel Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Anshuman, AOR For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR [arguing counsel] Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR Mr. Abhishek Kanyalur, Adv. Mr. Abhishekh Singh, Adv.

Inconsistent Decisions From Different Benches Shake Public Trust In Judiciary, Make Litigation A Punter's Game : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Inconsistency in approaches by benches will give rise to sharp practices like "forum shopping", the Court said.

Tags