The challenge of judicial inconsistency in India: Ensuring finality, permanence and clarity in rulings

The Indian judiciary, often celebrated as the guardian of the Constitution, has profoundly influenced the nation's legal and social landscape. Yet, an emerging concern within the legal sphere is the growing inconsistency in judicial decisions, particularly within the Supreme Court.

The frequent changes in legal interpretations by different benches on the same issues have fostered an environment of legal uncertainty, complicating the navigation of the legal system for lawyers and litigants alike.

This article delves into the repercussions of these inconsistencies, presents illustrative examples, and advocates for enhanced stability and clarity in judicial decisions to uphold the rule of law.  

Judicial inconsistency manifests when various benches of the Court interpret the same legal provisions in divergent ways, resulting in conflicting judgments. In India, this issue is magnified by the principle of stare decisis, which mandates that courts adhere to precedents set by higher courts.

However, the frequent overturning or reinterpreting of these precedents undermines the predictability of the law.

Different judges bring their own perspectives, ideologies and interpretations of the law, leading to varied rulings on identical issues. While this dynamic nature of the judiciary reflects a living Constitution, it can also result in a lack of finality and clarity in legal pronouncements. 

Significant examples of inconsistent decisions

The Supreme Court's ruling in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited (2012) overturned the earlier decision in Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Limited (2000), leaving many litigants feeling betrayed. For over a decade, individuals had relied on the Anil Hada decision, which permitted legal action against directors and officers of companies for bounced cheques, even when the company itself was not included in the complaint. However, Aneeta Hada altered this legal landscape, mandating that the company must be named in the complaint for the prosecution of its directors or officers to be valid.

This abrupt change in the law was perceived as a betrayal by those who had built their cases on the previous ruling. Many cases were dismissed, resulting in lost claims due to limitation issues. The Supreme Court's decision undermined a legal strategy that had been effective for years, forcing litigants a complete denial of justice. While altering such a well-established legal principle after more than a decade, the Supreme Court should have provided adequate time and opportunity for litigants to manage their cases.

Such decisions can have severe consequences for individuals, organisations, and the nation as a whole. They may indirectly provide an escape route for unscrupulous entities, thereby eroding the common man's faith in the Indian judiciary.

Another case is the Kerala Bar Hotels Association case. The Supreme Court in 2016 mandated the closure of liquor bars and restaurants within 500 meters of National and State Highways to curb drunk driving and accidents. This led to the closure of numerous outlets across Kerala, significantly reducing road accidents in the State. 

However, this decision was challenged and the Supreme Court allowed exemptions for bars within city limits. This reversal not only created confusion, but also raised questions about the judiciary’s commitment to public safety, exemplifying the broader issue of fluctuating judicial interpretations that undermine legal stability. 

Another prominent example of judicial inconsistency is the interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the proper jurisdiction for filing cases under this section.

In K Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, the Supreme Court examined where a complaint for dishonour of a cheque can be filed. The Court held that a complaint under Section 138 can be filed not only at the place where the cheque was presented for payment, but also where the bank on which the cheque was drawn is located.

However, later in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction for filing a complaint under Section 138 is restricted to the place where the cheque was presented for payment and dishonoured.

These inconsistencies have had practical implications for individuals and businesses. For instance, if a cheque issued in Mumbai is dishonoured, and the complainant resides in Delhi, conflicting rulings on where to file the case could force the complainant to navigate different jurisdictions or face dismissal of their complaint due to incorrect filing. 

In MC Mehta v. Union of India (2018), the Court had ruled that granite quarries must be located at least 1 kilometre away from National Highways to prevent infrastructure damage and mitigate the effects of dust and noise pollution. 

But that changed later in State of Tamil Nadu v. RK Granite Industries (2021). The 2021 ruling adjusted the distance requirement to 500 meters from National Highways for granite quarries, provided that operators implemented advanced dust control technologies and adhered to environmental management practices. 

Managing impact on the legal profession and the Rule of Law 

Frequent changes in legal interpretations have profound implications for the legal profession. Lawyers must continually update themselves on the latest judgments, often on a daily basis, to provide accurate advice to their clients. This constant flux is not only exhausting but also creates frustration within the legal community. Adapting to shifting judicial interpretations can erode confidence in the stability of the legal system. Lack of legal stability can deter investment, hinder economic development of the nation, and erode public trust in the judiciary.

Given the challenges posed by inconsistent judicial decisions, there is an urgent need for greater stability and clarity in legal interpretation. The Supreme Court should adopt a more cautious approach when overturning established precedents, ensuring that such decisions are made only when absolutely necessary and with thorough reasoning. 

In addressing judicial inconsistencies, it is crucial to emphasize empathy towards the aggrieved rather than providing escape routes for the opposite party. 

The frequent shifting of legal interpretations and regulatory standards has wide-reaching implications. The varying interpretations of laws contribute to an environment of legal uncertainty and can lead to confusion and operational difficulties.

Such frequent alterations not only benefit those who exploit these inconsistencies for their advantage, but also result in significant financial losses and operational disruptions for law-abiding individuals and businesses.

The legal system must prioritise the needs and experiences of those who have suffered due to dishonoured cheques or other grievances, ensuring that their pursuit of justice is not marred by procedural ambiguities or unfair practices. It is imperative that the judiciary reforms and clarifies its procedures to prevent such disenchantment and ensure that individuals seeking redress are treated with fairness and compassion, reinforcing their trust in the justice system.

Prioritising judicial training and the development of a more consistent judicial philosophy, particularly regarding fundamental rights and constitutional interpretation, could help minimise variations in judicial reasoning that often lead to inconsistent outcomes. Once a matter has passed through various interpretations by different High Courts and reaches the apex court, there must be a definitive and conclusive interpretation. The frequent shifts in legal interpretations, driven by changing bench compositions, have imposed significant burdens on the legal profession. It is crucial for the Supreme Court to strive for greater consistency and clarity in its rulings to uphold justice and ensure that the law remains a reliable and stable foundation for society.

Conclusion

Always keep in mind that a single decision by the Supreme Court can have profound implications, potentially creating significant challenges for millions of lawyers and considerable distress for aggrieved litigants across India. Therefore, it is imperative that judges approach their rulings with the utmost deliberation and maturity. 

In legal matters, every file represents a life, carrying the hopes, struggles, and rights of an individual or organisation. The decisions made based on these files can profoundly impact lives, making it imperative to handle them with utmost care and respect.

It is crucial that empathy, practical and ground realities, and the broader societal context are taken into account before pronouncing such significant rulings in future.  

This article serves only as constructive criticism with a view to open up a debate among the legal fraternity.

VR Manoranjan is an advocate practicing before the Kerala High Court.