The Supreme Court has observed that advocates are duty-bound to place before courts all relevant precedents, including judgments that may go against their own case, while judges must independently ensure consistency in the law and avoid passing per incuriam rulings.
The observations were made by a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M Pancholi while deciding an appeal filed by The New India Assurance Company Limited concerning deduction of mediclaim reimbursements from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act.
A per incuriam decision, the Court explained, is one rendered “through lack of care” without considering binding statutory provisions or prior judicial precedents.
Stressing the shared responsibility of the Bar and the Bench in maintaining judicial consistency, the Court said lawyers must assist courts by disclosing all relevant rulings, irrespective of whether they support their client’s case.
“It is this duty towards the Court which requires them to bring to the Court’s notice judgments both that aid their case and also those that do not,” the Bench observed in its May 15 judgment.
Supreme Court Notes Conflicting High Court Views
The Court pointed out that several High Courts across the country, and even coordinate benches within the same High Court, had delivered contradictory rulings on whether mediclaim amounts received by accident victims should be deducted from compensation granted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs).
The judgment referred to divergent decisions from the Delhi, Bombay, Kerala, Punjab and Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Madras High Courts. In some instances, smaller benches had taken views contrary to earlier rulings of larger benches.
According to the Court, such inconsistencies create uncertainty in the legal system and complicate adjudication for litigants, lawyers and judges alike.
The Bench warned that when conflicting precedents continue unchecked, litigants begin to expect varying outcomes depending on which judgment is relied upon. It emphasised that certainty in law is central to judicial efficiency and fairness.
“Where contradictory rulings continue to coexist, it becomes a matter of choice to follow one and leave aside the other, and it remains no longer a matter of law,” the Court observed.
Lawyers Have Duty Towards Justice Delivery System
The Supreme Court said advocates owe responsibilities not only to their clients but also to the court and the broader justice delivery system.
The judgment noted that a lawyer’s “awareness of law and grasp on facts” enables effective advocacy, including distinguishing unfavourable precedents. However, the Court clarified that lawyers cannot withhold adverse judgments from the court.
Recognising the realities of modern litigation, the Bench observed that courts today pronounce “tens of orders and judgments” daily across multiple branches of law, making it difficult for judges to remain instantly aware of every new precedent.
In that context, the Court said lawyers play a critical role in assisting courts and ensuring consistency in legal interpretation.
Judges Also Bound to Apply Correct Law
At the same time, the Supreme Court made it clear that the burden of maintaining consistency cannot rest solely on advocates.
“The Court itself has an independent tri-fold duty, to apply correct law even if the counsel does not cite the same, ensure consistency with precedent, and avoid per incuriam decisions,” the Bench said.
The Court also referred to the practical difficulties faced by judges, including heavy case loads, continuous dictation of orders and the need to handle matters spanning multiple jurisdictions.
It observed that both the Bar and the Bench must function with “a sense of service to the system” in order to reduce inconsistency and pendency in courts.
Mediclaim Amount Cannot Be Deducted From MACT Compensation
The observations came while resolving a long-standing dispute over whether reimbursement received under a mediclaim or health insurance policy could be deducted from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Rejecting the insurer’s argument that allowing both amounts would amount to a “double benefit”, the Supreme Court held that mediclaim payments arise out of contractual insurance rights obtained through payment of premiums, whereas compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is a statutory entitlement arising from a motor accident.
“In fine, we hold that the amount received as part of Mediclaim/medical insurance is not deductible from compensation as calculated by the concerned Tribunal,” the Court held.
The appeal filed by the insurer was dismissed as “meritless”, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh determination in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling. Pending applications were also disposed of.
