Citation : 2025 Local Law (SC) 1296
The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment emphasizing the constitutional duty of all courts to faithfully apply binding precedents laid down by the apex court. The Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, in Rohan Vijay Nahar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5454 of 2019 with 95 connected appeals), cautioned that courts cannot evade precedent by artificially distinguishing cases while ignoring their core principles.
The appeals arose from a 2018 decision of the Bombay High Court, which upheld revenue mutations marking certain lands as “private forests” vested in the State under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975. Landowners had challenged these entries, arguing that notices under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 were never personally served, no inquiry on objections was held, and no final notification under Section 35(1) was issued.
Reaffirming judicial discipline, the Supreme Court observed, “Courts must 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 Bench underscored that Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution impose binding obligations on all courts and authorities. “These are not ceremonial recitals,” the Court noted. “They are structural guarantees that convert dispersed adjudication into a single system that speaks with one voice.”
Justice Nath, writing the judgment, described judicial discipline as “the ethic that turns hierarchy into harmony,” and stressed that “respect for senior jurisdiction is not subservience but an acknowledgment of a common enterprise to do justice according to law.”
The Court criticized the Bombay High Court for misconstruing and attempting to distinguish the binding ratio of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 3 SCC 430. The earlier decision had made clear that the mere issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act is insufficient to deem land as “private forest” under the 1975 Act unless due service, inquiry, and possession procedures are completed.
Finding no evidence of service of notice, no final notification, and no possession taken by the State, the Supreme Court held that the High Court’s reasoning “amounts to an attempt to avoid a binding precedent rather than to apply it.”
The Court allowed all 96 appeals, set aside the High Court’s 2018 judgment, and quashed all mutation orders and annotations treating the lands as private forests. It directed corrections in the revenue records while leaving the State free to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
The ruling serves as a stern reminder that evasion or resistance to binding precedent undermines judicial legitimacy. The Court concluded, “When a judgment minimizes a binding ratio or seeks to distinguish on immaterial facts, it creates an appearance of reluctance to accept precedent.”
Case Details
Case Title: Rohan Vijay Nahar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 5454 of 2019 (with 95 connected appeals)
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Date of Judgment: November 7, 2025
