Case Law (SC) – When a coordinate Bench of a High Court has already determined a question of law, a subsequent Bench of equal strength is bound to follow that view; if it doubts its correctness, the only permissible course is to refer the matter to a larger Bench.

 Adani Power Ltd. & Anr v. Union Of India & Ors. [2026 INSC 1] dated 05.01.2026.

ISSUE BEFORE COURT ARE: -

38. From the rival submissions and the record before us, the following questions arise for consideration:

I. Firstly, what, in law, did the Gujarat High Court decide in its judgment dated 15 July 2015, and what is the true scope of that decision?

II. Secondly, whether, in the period subsequent to 15 September 2010 and prior to 16 February 2016, there was any material changes in the statutory position or factual footing that would justify a different result from that arrived at in 2015 judgment?

III. Thirdly, whether the High Court, in its impugned judgment of 28 June 2019, was justified in holding that no relief could be granted to the appellant in the absence of a specific and fresh challenge to Notification Nos. 91/2010-Cus. and 26/2012-Cus?

IV. Fourthly, whether, in view of the 2015 declaration of law and its affirmation, the High Court in 2019 was at liberty, being a coordinate Bench, to deny relief by narrowing the effect of the earlier pronouncement?

V. Fifthly, what order/direction?

DECISION: -

“80. We accordingly hold that the Division Bench of 2019 acted contrary to the settled doctrine of judicial discipline. When a coordinate Bench of a High Court has already determined a question of law, a subsequent Bench of equal strength is bound to follow that view; if it doubts its correctness, the only permissible course is to refer the matter to a larger Bench. This rule, has been reaffirmed by this Court in State of U.P. v. Ajay Kumar Sharma (2016) 15 SCC 289, is not procedural etiquette but a structural safeguard against judicial inconsistency. The discipline of stare decisis ensures coherence and predictability in law, which are indispensable to the legitimacy of adjudication. The 2019 Bench, by confining the earlier decision to a narrow time frame without referring the matter to a larger Bench, effectively unsettled a settled proposition and undermined the authority of precedent. Such a course was impermissible. The coordinate Bench was duty-bound to apply the ratio of the 2015 judgment to the appellant’s case, and its failure to do so vitiates the impugned decision.

81. We now turn to an aspect which goes beyond the immediate dispute between the parties. The case also concerns the obligation of the administration to give full effect to judicial decisions once they have attained finality. The authority of the rule of law rests not only in the pronouncement of judgments but equally in their proper implementation. It is therefore necessary to briefly recall the principles that govern the conduct of the executive after a court has finally settled the legal position.

82. When a High Court of competent jurisdiction declares a levy to be ultra vires and unconstitutional, and this Court declines to interfere, that declaration cannot be treated as a one-time indulgence for a closed period. It is incumbent upon the authorities thereafter to conform their conduct to the law so declared. They cannot, consistent with constitutional discipline, continue to enforce the same levy for a later period on the strength of slightly altered subordinate instruments and then resist restitution on grounds of technical pleading.

83. It is well settled that in the public interest there must be an end to litigation. The appellant succeeded in 2015. The Union failed in its challenge before this Court. The appellant then approached the High Court in 2016 essentially seeking implementation of the declaration already made. To deny relief on the footing that it is a new notification or that period was not expressly mentioned is to frustrate finality and to compel the citizen to engage in repetitive litigation to secure, in practice, what has already been recognised in principle.

84. Accordingly we hold that once the 2015 judgment had declared the levy to be ultra vires and this Court had declined interference, it was incumbent upon the administrative authorities to conform their conduct to that declaration. Judicial pronouncements are not advisory opinions; they are binding commands of law. When the executive continues to enforce, under new guise, a levy that has been judicially struck down, it acts in defiance of constitutional discipline and erodes public confidence in the rule of law. Finality of adjudication is an essential component of good governance. The repetition of an invalidated levy through successive notifications compels needless litigation, burdens the courts, and subjects citizens to prolonged uncertainty. The authorities in this case were obliged to treat the matter as concluded and ought to have extended the benefit of the 2015 decision uniformly to all subsequent periods until the law was altered by legislative action. Their failure to do so justified judicial intervention. The doctrine interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which essentially means, that it is in the public interest that there be an end to litigation would squarely apply; the State must exemplify obedience to judgments, not resistance to them.

85. This litigation has spanned more than a decade. The substantive question at its core was only this: whether, in the absence of a clear charging section, customs duty could be imposed on electrical energy cleared from an SEZ into the DTA? And, according to our observations above it stood answered in 2015 and that answer withstood scrutiny by this Court also. What ought to have followed thereafter was faithful implementation, not renewed resistance.”