What a 5-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court held on recording of reasons by superior courts

A five-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court recently reiterated that it is sufficient for a superior court to merely state its approval of a lower court’s decision to render it a binding precedent. The fact that the superior court did not elaborate on its reasons for approving the subordinate court’s decision is immaterial, the Court held..A judgment to this effect was rendered by the Bench of Chief Justice Dilip B Bhosale and Justices MK Gupta, Suneet Kumar, Yashwant Varma and SD Singh, while declining a reference made to reconsider the law laid down in Dr Vishwajeet Singh and Ors v. State of UP. This case deals with the application of reservation law in Uttar Pradesh for faculty positions in Higher Educational institutions..In this case, it was held that reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes in lecturer posts must be applied subject wise treating the college as the ‘unit’. Further, it had held that no reservation could be applied if the number of posts in the cadre is three or less. In a cadre with a minimum of five posts, one post is to be reserved for Scheduled Castes and one post for the Other Backward Classes category subject to the roster point being meticulously followed..The Vishwajeet case was affirmed by a three-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Heera Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, in the case of Dr Archana Misra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court expressed its doubts on the correctness of the law laid down in these cases. Therefore, it referred the matter to a larger Bench..A Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed against this reference in 2011. Whereas the Supreme Court initially granted leave to appeal, the SLP was dismissed as withdrawn in 2017..Importantly, civil appeals made against the Vishwajeet judgment itself were also dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2017 by a brief order, the entirety of which stated,.“We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length..We are in agreement with the view taken in the impugned judgment. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly affirmed..The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs..Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.”.In this background the question before the court was whether this Full Bench can proceed further on merits and rule upon the correctness of Dr. Vishwajeet Singh even though the appeal preferred against it has come to be dismissed by the Supreme Court..It was contended by Senior Counsel Ashok Khare and RK Ojha appearing for the petitioners that since the Supreme Court had not elaborated on the reasons prompting its dismissal of the appeal, it was only a non-speaking order. Therefore, it was argued, the doctrine of merger would not apply and the Full Bench was free to examine the correctness of the Vishwajeet judgment. Advocate General for Uttar Pradesh Raghvendra Singh appeared for the state..However, the Court took a contrary view, given that the Supreme Court had expressly recorded its agreement with the High Court’s judgment in the Vishwajeet case. Moreover, this was done after the Court granted leave to appeal in the SLP, which meant that the Supreme Court subjected the matter to its appellate jurisdiction..On this aspect, the Bench also referred to the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, which had held that the grant of leave to appeal indicates that the merits of the order/judgment is being subjected to judicial scrutiny of the Supreme Court. As observed in the Kunhayammed case,.“Once a special leave petition has been granted, the doors for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Court have been let open. The order impugned before the Supreme Court becomes an order appealed against. Any order passed thereafter would be an appellate order and would attract the applicability of doctrine of merger. .It would not make a difference whether the order is one of reversal or of modification or of dismissal affirming the order appealed against. It would also not make any difference if the order is a speaking or non-speaking one.”.Further, in S Shanmugavel Nadar v State of Tamil Nadu, another Supreme Court decision, it was held that a subordinate court’s decision can be viewed as being merged with the superior court’s order, if the superior court either adopts or reiterates the reasoning of the subordinate court, or if it has “recorded an express approval of the reasoning incorporated in the judgment or order of the subordinate forum.”.These observations applied squarely in the Vishwajeet case. The Bench noted,.“Insofar as the case before us is concerned, it is clear from the order that the Supreme Court not only dismissed the Civil Appeals after granting leave but while doing so, clearly observed that it was in agreement with the view taken in the impugned judgment and, accordingly, affirmed the judgment of this Court… .…This in our considered opinion would clearly mean that the statement of the law as reflected in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh which was the subject matter of the appeal, stands confirmed by the Supreme Court…“.The Court also emphasised that such express approval indicated that the appeal against the Vishwajeet case had been dismissed on merits..“It is pertinent to bear in mind that the appeal was not dismissed on technical grounds… It cannot, in the facts of the case before us, be stated that the Supreme Court did not apply its mind to the facts.“.In view of these reasons, the Court declined to entertain the reference, holding,.“The mere fact that no elaborate reasons were recorded while dismissing the Civil Appeals also does not convince us to opine that this Court would have the authority to review the correctness of Dr. Vishwajeet Singh. The unambiguous “express approval” in the order of 19.01.2017 clearly forecloses all debate and quells all doubts on the question raised.”.Read the Judgment: