The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, expressed concern over the inconsistency of decisions from different benches, highlighting that such discrepancies undermine public trust and emphasize the need for consistency as a hallmark of a responsible judiciary.
During a session presided over by Justices P S Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, a troubling scenario was brought to light in a matrimonial matter where contradictory verdicts were delivered by two different single benches of the Karnataka High Court.
In one instance, a judge refused to quash proceedings against the in-laws, citing a wound certificate that evidenced the appellant was assaulted and suffered injuries. Conversely, another bench ruled to quash proceedings against the respondent husband, asserting that the medical certificate did not align with the complaint’s allegations of injuries caused by a blunt weapon.
Justice Bagchi criticized the latter judgment, noting that the judge had inappropriately conducted a mini-trial to dismiss the case—an action deemed impermissible in law. He pointed out that this judge failed to consider a prior judgment which did not quash the proceedings against some in-laws, marking a significant oversight in judicial consistency.
The apex court stressed that judges must reference decisions from coordinate benches and provide reasons when reaching different conclusions, to maintain judicial propriety and discipline. “Inconsistent decisions from different benches transform litigation into a gambler’s play, encouraging malpractices like forum shopping which tarnish the justice system,” the bench remarked.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court clarified that the presence of a matrimonial dispute does not automatically render criminal proceedings alleging assault, supported by medical evidence and independent witness testimonies, as malicious or abusive. It underscored that assessments of compatibility between ocular and medical evidence should be determined at trial rather than prematurely ending prosecution.
The case in question involved allegations against the estranged husband of having an affair and verbal abuse by another woman. Additionally, the wife accused her husband and in-laws of physical and mental harassment, including a demand for a Rs 2-lakh dowry, leading her to reside with her parents. The criminal case lodged against the husband and in-laws encompassed charges of assault and dowry harassment.
