Case Title:- Rohan Vijay Nahar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation:- 2025 INSC 1296
Date:- 07.11.2025
Hon’ble Supreme Court Bench:- JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH and JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reminded courts across the country that “the judiciary draws its strength from discipline and not dominion,” underscoring that obedience to binding precedent is a constitutional duty.
- The Hon’ble Court explained that Article 141 makes the law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all courts. Article 144 directs all authorities to act in support of the Supreme Court’s decisions. These are not formal words but vital rules that keep India’s justice system united.
- The Hon’ble Court warned that lower courts cannot escape or twist precedents by making weak distinctions. If a judge disagrees with a precedent, the proper way is to follow it and request a larger Bench to reconsider it, not to sidestep it.
- The Hon’ble Court said that “judicial discipline is the ethic that turns hierarchy into harmony.” Courts must work together in a system where higher courts guide lower ones, this is essential for public trust in justice. Respecting higher courts is not about surrendering independence; it means recognising that all courts share the same goal which is to deliver justice according to law.
- The Hon’ble Court reaffirmed the principle of stare decisis (stand by decided cases), saying it ensures equality before the law and prevents confusion and inconsistency in judgments. The Hon’ble Court cautioned that ignoring or resisting higher court rulings undermines the rule of law, increases unnecessary litigation, and weakens people’s faith in the judicial system.
- The Hon’ble Court reminded that “judges do not sit to settle scores.” The gavel represents reason, not retaliation. A vindictive approach is against a judge’s oath to uphold the Constitution.
- These remarks came while setting aside a Hon’ble Bombay High Court order that wrongly declared private lands as forest under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Hon’ble High Court misread old records and failed to follow its earlier judgment in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra.
