In Leonard Xavier Valdaris v. Jitendra Ramnayaran Rathod & Ors. [2024] 5 S.C.R. 400 : 2024 INSC 344 the issue which was under consideration was whether a Single Judge of the High Court can disagree with an earlier order of a Single Judge based on the same set of facts and one trial, and give a conflicting order.
The SC ruled that “In our opinion, once the Single Judge, while deciding Criminal Writ Petition No. 4451/2022 formed an opinion that the judgment/order dated 16.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge was unsustainable and contrary to law, the matter should have been referred to a Division Bench/two-Judges Bench instead of passing a conflicting judgment in the same set of facts. “
Previously, the SC Court in Lala Shri Bhagwan & Another v. Shri Ram Chand & Another held that: “It is hardly necessary to emphasise that considerations of judicial propriety and decorum require that if a learned Single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of the High Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a Single Judge, needed to be reconsidered, he should not embark upon that enquiry sitting as a Single Judge, but should refer the matter to a Division Bench or, in a proper case, place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question.”
Similarly, in Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar v. State of Maharashtra, the Apex Court stated that: “When there was a decision of a coordinate court, it was open to the learned Judge to differ from it but in that case the only judicial alternative was to refer it to a larger bench and not to dispose of the appeal by taking a contrary view. Judicial discipline as well as decorum should suggest that as the only course.”