Reference To Larger Bench Does Not Freeze Binding Precedent: Bombay High Court

“It is necessary for continuity, certainty and productivity in the administration of justice that the decision is followed without awaiting a decision by the larger Bench”— Upholding the sanctity of judicial discipline, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has ruled that a Supreme Court judgment remains binding law even if its correctness has been doubted and referred to a larger bench for reconsideration.

THE HARIHARAN DEFENSE: ATTEMPT TO BYPASS PRECEDENT

The observation came during a high-stakes seniority dispute where the petitioners sought to evade the application of the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench judgment in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro (2020). The petitioners argued that the Meghachandra verdict—which ruled that seniority counts from the date of appointment, not the date of vacancy—had lost its binding character.

Their contention rested on a subsequent development in Hariharan & Ors. v. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rao, where a different bench of the Supreme Court expressed doubts regarding the correctness of the Meghachandra ruling and referred the matter to a larger bench. The petitioners submitted that due to this pending reference, the High Court should not rely on Meghachandra to determine seniority disputes.

CONTINUITY OVER CHAOS: THE DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT

Rejection this submission, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad delivered a lecture on the doctrine of stare decisis. The Court held that a "reference" merely indicates that a coordinate bench has doubted a view; it does not amount to a stay or an overruling of the judgment.

The High Court emphasized that if courts were to pause the application of settled law every time a reference was made to a larger bench, it would lead to legal paralysis. The Bench cited the Supreme Court’s prior ruling in Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, reiterating that a decision by a Constitution Bench is binding on all courts under Article 141 of the Constitution until it is specifically set aside.

THE LAW STANDS UNTIL OVERRULED

The Court clarified the distinction between a judgment being "overruled" and being "referred." While the correctness of K. Meghachandra Singh is under scrutiny, it has not been stayed. Therefore, it remains the law of the land.

"Judicial discipline demands that the decision in K. Meghachandra Singh is followed," the Court asserted. By refusing to freeze the application of the precedent, the Bombay High Court has sent a clear signal: administrative and judicial processes cannot be held in limbo in anticipation of a future verdict; the law as it stands today must govern current adjudications.

Date of Decision: 27th November 2025