New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant judgment reaffirming the constitutional duty of all courts to faithfully apply binding precedents established by the apex court, warning that courts cannot sidestep precedential authority by superficially distinguishing cases while disregarding their substantive holdings.
The ruling was delivered by a 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 along with 95 connected appeals), decided on November 7, 2025.
The appeal arose from a batch of 96 civil appeals challenging a judgment dated September 27, 2018, rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a group of writ petitions. The High Court had declined to interfere with revenue mutations and annotations that described the subject lands as affected by forest proceedings and as having vested in the State under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975.
The appellants were landowners in the State of Maharashtra who challenged revenue annotations and mutation entries recording their lands as “private forest” and as vested in the State. The State Authorities asserted that notices under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 had been issued and published in the Official Gazette during the early 1960s. The landowners contended that such notices were not personally served, that no inquiry on objections was held, and that no final notification under Section 35(1) of the Indian Forest Act was issued. They further asserted that possession had never been taken under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975, and that the lands continued to be dealt with as private holdings for decades.
While deciding the appeals, the Court observed:
“We restate the simple duty of Courts: 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 strongly cautioned against the practice of superficially distinguishing binding precedents while disregarding their essence. The Court stated:
“The lawful course is to apply the precedent and, if needed, record reasons for inviting a larger Bench to reconsider it. The unlawful and unjust course is to distinguish in name while disregarding in substance or to recast issues in order to sidestep a rule that binds.”
Emphasizing the constitutional framework, the Court noted that Articles 141 and 144 impose clear obligations on all courts and authorities. The judgment stated:
“The Constitution of India creates courts of record that are independent in their spheres and yet binds them together through a coherent hierarchy. The High Courts in India possess a wide jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court of India remains the final interpreter of law. Article 141 of the Constitution of India declares that the law laid down by this Court binds every court in the country. Further, Article 144 of the Constitution obliges all authorities, civil and judicial, to act in aid of this Court. These are not ceremonial recitals. They are the structural guarantees that convert dispersed adjudication into a single system that speaks with one voice and commands public confidence.”
The Bench warned that evasion or resistance by subordinate courts undermines the rule of law:
“When a superior court reverses, modifies, or remands, the court below must give full and faithful effect to that disposition. Resistance or evasion does not merely disserve a party before the court; it erodes predictability, multiplies litigation, and weakens faith in the rule of law.”
Citing the Latin maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is in the public interest that litigation should come to an end), the Court observed that finality from the apex court is essential to maintaining a coherent nationwide system of justice.
Justice Nath, authoring the judgment, described judicial discipline as “the ethic that turns hierarchy into harmony,” requiring “courtesy, restraint, and obedience to binding precedent even where a judge is personally unpersuaded.”
The Court elaborated on the principle of stare decisis:
“‘Stare decisis et non quieta movere,’ which means to stand by decisions and not to disturb settled matters, is not a slogan but a safeguard of equality before the law.”
The Court reminded the judiciary that “judges do not sit to settle scores. The gavel is an instrument of reason and not a weapon of reprisal. A vindictive stance is incompatible with the oath to uphold the Constitution and the law.”
The judgment further observed that collegiality is the companion virtue of independence and that reversals on appeal should not be viewed as personal affronts but as the ordinary operation of a constitutional hierarchy that corrects error and settles law.
Emphasizing that respect for senior jurisdiction is not subservience but acknowledgment of a common enterprise, the Court stated:
“Respect for the senior jurisdiction is not subservience. It is an acknowledgment that all courts pursue a common enterprise to do justice according to law.”
The Court stressed that courts speak through reasons, and reasons that align with binding authority preserve both the legality and legitimacy of the judiciary. The judgment warned that a judgment attempting to resist binding authority undermines the unity of law, burdens litigants with avoidable expense and delay, and invites the perception that outcomes depend on the identity of the judge.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had misconstrued binding precedent established in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 3 SCC 430, wherein a three-judge Bench had held that mere issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act is not, by itself, sufficient to treat land as a “private forest” within Section 2(f)(iii) of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975.
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had attempted to distinguish the binding precedent rather than faithfully apply it. The Court noted:
“We find that the High Court’s approach amounts to an attempt to avoid a binding precedent rather than to apply it. The impugned reasoning rests on a misreading of a Gazette publication that only reproduced a draft text and expressly invited objections.”
The Court emphasized that the expression “issued” in Section 2(f)(iii) of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 comprehends due service on the owner, because service alone triggers the owner’s right to object and obliges the State to consider such objection. The Court held that a notice that grants time for objections cannot coexist with a final decision under Section 35(1) without rendering the statutory hearing illusory.
The Supreme Court found that across the appeals, the essential links in the statutory chain were missing. There was no proof of service of any Section 35(3) notice on the then owners, no final notification under Section 35(1) of the Indian Forest Act, and actual possession had at all times remained with private owners. The Court observed that no possession was taken under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975, no compensation exercise was undertaken, and no inquiry was held at a time proximate to the appointed day of August 30, 1975.
The Court rejected the distinctions drawn by the High Court between original owners and subsequent purchasers, holding that the binding ratio on service, on the need for a live process, and on strict compliance does not turn on whether an appellant is an original owner or a subsequent purchaser.
The Supreme Court held:
“Judicial discipline required faithful application of the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. Coordinate Benches of the High Court have consistently followed Godrej and Boyce (Supra) in closely comparable situations. The impugned judgment nonetheless revives positions that Godrej and Boyce (Supra) has rejected.”
The Court further observed:
“When a judgment minimizes a binding ratio, ignores missing statutory steps, and seeks to distinguish on immaterial facts, it creates an appearance of a reluctance to accept precedent.”
The Supreme Court concluded:
“We accordingly hold that the present appeals are indistinguishable in principle from Godrej and Boyce (Supra). The record discloses the same jurisdictional defect of non-service of a notice under Section 35(3) of the IFA, the same absence of a final notification under Section 35(1) of the IFA, and the same want of contemporaneous steps under Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the MPFA Act. In such circumstances, the High Court could not, consistently with Article 141 of the Constitution, avoid the binding ratio by treating immaterial differences as determinative.”
The Supreme Court allowed the batch of 96 civil appeals and set aside the judgment dated September 27, 2018, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The writ petitions before the High Court were allowed. All mutation orders and any declarations treating the subject lands as private forests were quashed and set aside. The Court directed that consequential corrections be made in the revenue records.
The Court reserved liberty to the State to initiate proceedings in accordance with law as per the relevant statutes and to bring them to a logical conclusion after following due process of law.
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
