The Delhi High Court has held that only the Supreme Court can give a caveat that its judgment will not be cited as a precedent, and that such a power is not available to any other court, Bar and Bench reported on Wednesday.

Source: Bar and Bench

A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar said, in the passage quoted by Verdictum: 'This caveat is, therefore, unique to the Supreme Court, as its decisions are constitutionally binding by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.' The Bench expressed serious doubt that any other court can direct that its decision will not be cited in other cases, Verdictum reported.

Source: Verdictum

Article 141Supreme Court law is binding on all courts in India
2026:DHC:9162-DBneutral citation of the Delhi HC judgment
Jan 1, 2006date to which Scientist C promotion was ante-dated

The court reasoned that if courts lower in the hierarchy also claimed the authority to say their decisions would not be treated as binding precedents, similarly placed litigants could receive different treatment. 'Ex facie, this would be impermissible,' the Bench added. It also said that even where facts are similar, a lower court cannot treat a Supreme Court judgment as binding precedent if the Supreme Court itself has clarified that it should not apply in such circumstances, in which case the binding effect of Article 141 would not apply.

The observations came in Union of India & Anr. v. Om Prakash, as the court upheld a January 2024 Central Administrative Tribunal order in favour of Om Prakash, a retired scientist of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. He had been granted in-situ promotion as Scientist C under the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) from July 2, 2007 and retired in June 2013; he claimed promotion as Scientist C from January 1, 2006 and as Scientist D from January 1, 2010, the dates he said he became eligible, Verdictum reported.

The Centre had challenged the tribunal order, arguing that recruitment rules and Department of Personnel and Training memoranda bar retrospective promotion and that the FCS is a merit-based scheme requiring screening, interview and committee assessment, Bar and Bench reported. The High Court rejected that defence on these facts: following Nakul Dev v. Union of India and the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. S.K. Murti, it held the Ministry could not rely on the bar on retrospective promotion where the delay in assessment was wholly attributable to it, as that would let the Ministry capitalise on its own default.

The court upheld ante-dating of the promotion as Scientist C to January 1, 2006. For Scientist D from January 1, 2010, the promotion will be subject to his being found suitable on the remaining FCS parameters, with the interview requirement dispensed with because an interview cannot be held after his retirement, Verdictum reported. CGSC Balendu Shekhar appeared for the Union of India, and advocates Sudarshan Rajan, Hitain Bajaj and Ria Setiya appeared for Om Prakash.

Sources: Bar and Bench, Verdictum.