1961 (10) TMI 108 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Binding nature of judicial precedents of the Bombay High Court on the Gujarat High Court post-reorganization.
2. Interpretation of "law in force" under Section 87 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960.
3. Whether judicial precedents can be considered "law in force."
4. Co-ordinate jurisdiction between the Bombay High Court and the Gujarat High Court.
5. Successor-predecessor relationship between the Bombay High Court and the Gujarat High Court.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Binding Nature of Judicial Precedents:

The primary issue was whether the judicial precedents of the Bombay High Court given before May 1, 1960, are binding on the Gujarat High Court. The Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Anand Municipality v. Union of India had previously held that such precedents are binding, interpreting them as falling within the ambit of "law in force" under Section 87 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960.

2. Interpretation of "Law in Force" under Section 87:

Section 87 states: "The provisions of Part II shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends or applies and territorial references in any such law to the State of Bombay shall, until otherwise provided by a competent Legislature or other competent authority, be construed as meaning the territories within that State immediately before the appointed day."

The majority opinion held that "law in force" does not include judicial precedents. The term "law in force" should be understood in the context of territorial extent and application of laws, not judicial decisions. The judgment emphasized that judicial precedents do not have territorial extent or application as statutory laws do.

3. Judicial Precedents as "Law in Force":

The argument that judicial precedents are "law in force" was rejected. Judicial precedents are not laws but interpretations of laws. They bind certain courts under certain circumstances based on judicial comity and decorum, not because they are laws themselves. The judgment clarified that judicial decisions are declaratory of the law and not the law itself.

4. Co-ordinate Jurisdiction:

The court examined whether the Gujarat High Court and the Bombay High Court prior to May 1, 1960, are courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction. The test for co-ordinate jurisdiction includes equal rank, status, and similar jurisdiction. The judgment concluded that the Gujarat High Court does not share the same territorial jurisdiction as the Bombay High Court did before May 1, 1960, and thus cannot be considered a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.

5. Successor-Predecessor Relationship:

The judgment recognized the Gujarat High Court as a successor to the Bombay High Court in respect of the territories forming part of the State of Gujarat. The Gujarat High Court succeeded to all jurisdiction, power, and authority of the Bombay High Court in these territories. Therefore, the decisions of the Bombay High Court prior to May 1, 1960, are binding on the Gujarat High Court to the same extent as if they were decisions of the Gujarat High Court itself.

Conclusion:

The Special Full Bench concluded that while the judicial precedents of the Bombay High Court given prior to May 1, 1960, do not constitute "law in force" under Section 87 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960, they have the same binding force and effect on the Gujarat High Court as if they were decisions of the Gujarat High Court itself. This conclusion ensures continuity, uniformity, and certainty in the administration of justice in the territories now forming part of the State of Gujarat.