Counsel must exhibit circumspection in the number of cases they cite: Supreme Court

Today, a division bench of the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) has made an important observation (Rashmi Metalinks Ltd. & Ors v.Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors.) regarding the plethora of cases cited by the counsels. The Court observed that:

                                       “This Court, and even more so the High Court as well as the subordinate courts have to face lengthy arguments in each case because of the practice of citing innumerable decisions on a particular point of law. The correct approach is to predicate arguments on the decision which holds the field......”

(Image Source: Wikipedia)

The problem, according to the bench of Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice Vikramajit Sen, is not with the cases which deal with different questions of law. But, the main problem arises when each of the cited cases deals with the same question of law in the same manner. Senior Advocates K.V. Vishwanathan and A.M. Singhvi had appeared for the appellants and the respondents respectively. Both of them relied heavily on numbers on judgments of the Supreme Court which, in the opinion of the Court, were similar in nature. According to the court:

                                       “.....The sheer plethora of precedents makes it essential that this Court should abjure from discussing each and every decision which has dealt with a similar question of law.  Failure to follow this discipline and regimen inexorably leads to prolixity in judgments which invariably is a consequence of lengthy arguments”

Before criticising the voluminous citation of cases, court referred to the rule of precedent and stare decisis. It was emphasised by the Court that the rules are predicated on the wisdom and salubrity of providing a firmly founded law. In the absence of this, there will be an uncertainty and ambiguity.

In the present case, the Supreme Court had to decide a question related to essential and non-essential terms of the tender. The appellant had approached the Court since its bid was disqualified for not complying with the conditions of the tender. The question was whether the impugned condition was essential or not. This, according to the court, could have been decided with the help of only one precedent, i.e., Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651. In Tata Cellular (supra), one would be able to find conditions where it has been held that the Court is only concerned with the manner in which policy decisions, such as tender, have been taken. Having analysed the position of law in Tata Cellular (supra), Supreme Court then made its comparison with the cited case-laws. The Court thereafter opined that:

                                       “...This analysis of the cited case-law shows that there is little or no advantage to be gained from the manner in which the Court has responded to the factual matrix as other Courts may  legitimately place emphasis on seemingly similar facts to arrive at a different conclusion. But the ratio decidendi has to be adhered to.  Counsel must therefore exhibit circumspection in the number of cases they cite...”

Regarding the similarity in the factual matrix of different cases, it was noted by the Court that the same only remains a rarity. Hence, there should be carefulness even in relying on a precedent on account of similar factual matrix. So far as the decision in the present case is concerned, it was held that the impugned condition was not essential.

Note: This is an important opinion in a situation when a large number of cases are pending before each court in India. If a careful approach is not adopted in citing the cases, then court would be spending a huge amount of time in dealing with a single case. Unlike Kesavananda Bharati, not every case requires the plethora of decisions and literature. Let us have a self regulation in citing the number of cases.