S. SHANMUGAVEL NADAR versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 498 · Decided: 18-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
S. SHANMUGAVEL NADAR 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 18, 2002 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Doctrine of merger: 
Decision of lower court-Merger of in the decision of superior court-
C Scope and extent of -Appeals against judgment of Division Bench of High 
Court in M. Varadaraja Pillai's case• upholding constitutional validity of 
provisions of State Act No. 13 of 1960 dismissed by Supreme Court on 
I 0. 9.1986 for non-joinder of State, as a party-Prayer for impleadment refused 
on the ground that it was made after a long lapse of time -In a later case 
D another Division Bench of the High Court felt that the decision in M. 
Varadaraja Pil/ai's case required re-consideration and referred the matter to 
a Full Bench which observed that the appeals challenging the decision in 
M. Varadaraja Pillai's case having been dismissed by Supreme Court, the 
decision of the Division Bench of the High Court got merged with the 
·~...:.;,_ 
decision of the Supreme Court-Held, it cannot be said that the decision of 
E Supreme Court dated 10.9.1986 had the effect of resulting in merger of the 
decision of High Court into the order of Supreme Court as regards the 
statement of law or the reasons recorded by the Division Bench in M. 
Varadaraja Pillai's case-The contents of the order dated 10.9.1986 clearly 
reveal that neither the merits of the order of the High Court nor the reasons 
F recorded therein nor the law laid down thereby were gone into nor they 
could have been gone into-In spite of the dismissal of appeals by order 
dated I 0. 9.1986 by Supreme Court on the ground of non-joinder of necessary 
party, though the operative part of the order of the Division Bench stood 
merged in the decision of Supreme Court, the remaining part of the order of 
the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be said to have merged in the 
G order dated I 0. 9.1986 nor did the said order make any declaration of law 
within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution either expressly or by 
11ecessa1y implication-The statement of law as contained in the Division 
Bench decision of the High Court in M. Varadaraja Pillai's case would 
therefore continue to remain the decision of the High Court, binding as a 
H precedent on subsequent benches of coordinate or lesser strength but open 
498 
S. SHANMUGA VEL NA DAR v. ST A TE 
499 
to reconsideration by any bench of the same High Court with a coram of A 
judges more than two-Merger of decision of lower forum into that ofa 
higher forum explained-Judgment-Merger of Precedent. 
M. Varadaraja Pillai v. Salem Municipal Council, (1972) 85 Law 
Weekly, 760, referred to. 
State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh, AIR (1958) SC 86; State of Madras 
v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd., AIR (1967) SC 681 and Kunhayammed and Ors. 
v. State of Kera/a and Anr., (2000( 6 SCC 359, referred to. 
Constitution of India, 1950 
Article 141-Declaration of/aw by Supreme Court-Appeals against 
decision of Division Bench of High Court in M. Varadaraja Pillai's case 
upholding constitutional validity of State Act No. 13 of 1960, dismissed by 
Supreme Court on I 0. 9.1986 holding that State, being a necessary party, was 
B 
c 
not impleaded--Court did not allow the prayer for impleadment which was D 
made after lapse of a long period-Nor did the Court go into the question 
of constitutionality of Act 13 of 1960--In a later case when the matter was 
referred to a Full Bench of the High Court for re-consideration of the 
decision of High Court in M. Varadaraja Pillai 's case the Full Bench observed 
that the appeals having been dismissed by the Supreme Court it was not open 
for the Full Bench to examine and consider the correctness of the law laid E 
down by the Division Bench in M. Varadaraja Pillai's case which would be 
deemed to have been affirmed by Supreme Court-Held. for a declaration of 
law there should be a speaking order-In the present case, the order dated 
10.9.1986 passed by Supreme Court can be said to be a declaration of law 
limited only to two points-(i) that in a petition putting in issue the F 
constitutional validity of any State Legislation the State is a necessary party 
and in its absence the issue cannot be gone into, and (ii) that a belated 
prayer for impleading a necessary party may be declined by Supreme Court 
. exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 if the granting of the prayer is 
considered by the Court neither necessary nor proper at the given distance 
of time-By no stretch o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.