Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline

“Doctrine of Precedent Is Not Optional”, In a significant reaffirmation of the constitutional framework governing judicial discipline, the Supreme Court of India , issued a pointed rebuke to the reasoning adopted in Suhas H. Pophale v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014), holding that its departure from the binding authority of larger Benches amounted to a serious breach of judicial propriety.

The ruling came in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. v. Vita & Ors., where a three-judge Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria categorically stated:

“The propositions enunciated in Suhas H. Pophale do not state the correct position of law and, with great respect, are not in consonance with the settled legal principles and stand overruled.”

What drew the Court’s censure was the fact that the two-judge Bench in Suhas Pophale consciously departed from the Constitution Bench decision in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank (1990) and the three-judge Bench in Jain Ink Manufacturing Co. v. LIC (1980), by holding that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) could not apply to tenancies created prior to nationalisation.

The Court was unequivocal in its disapproval:

“A Bench of lesser strength cannot overrule or disregard a judgment of a larger Bench—even if it believes that certain arguments were not considered. To do so is to ignore the fundamental doctrine of precedent and institutional discipline.”

The judgment reinforces that the hierarchy of benches is not a matter of judicial convenience, but a constitutional necessity for ensuring consistency and certainty in law.

Judicial Discipline Must Prevail Over Individual Opinion: Supreme Court Warns Against Selective Precedent Application

While the decision in Suhas Pophale had sought to distinguish the Constitution Bench ruling on the ground that certain factual nuances were not addressed in Ashoka Marketing, the present Bench clarified that such reasoning cannot justify deviation from binding authority:

“It is impermissible for a co-equal or smaller Bench to sit in judgment over a larger Bench on the assumption that a particular point was not urged. Judicial discipline demands fidelity to the binding ratio.”

The Court warned that any failure to follow binding precedent not only creates judicial confusion but also weakens the institutional authority of the judiciary itself.

Quoting established principles of constitutional interpretation, the Bench observed:

“If every Bench were permitted to carve exceptions out of larger Bench rulings based on its own sense of completeness or factual variation, the entire doctrine of stare decisis would collapse.”

Supreme Court Sends Strong Institutional Message—Judicial Hierarchy Is Constitutional, Not Discretionary

The ruling in LIC v. Vita thus serves as a powerful institutional reminder that no Bench—howsoever well-intentioned—can override a Constitution Bench or three-judge Bench ruling, merely by asserting that a particular argument was not advanced.

“Deviation from precedent is not a matter of judicial innovation but judicial indiscipline when done without reference to a larger Bench,” the Court concluded.

By overruling Suhas H. Pophale and reaffirming the primacy of Ashoka Marketing (Constitution Bench), the Court has not only restored clarity on the Public Premises Act but also reaffirmed a foundational pillar of Indian constitutional adjudication—the binding force of precedent.

Date of Decision: December 11, 2025