Rohan Vijay Nahar vs State of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 1296 - Precedent - Precedent - Judicial Discipline - Forest

Constitution of India - Article 141,144 -Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution make obedience a constitutional duty and not a matter of personal preference (Para 4) -The High Courts in India possess a wide jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court of India remains the final interpreter of law- The law laid down by Supreme Court binds every court in the country- All authorities, civil and judicial, to act in aid of Supreme Court. These are not ceremonial recitals. They are the structural guarantees that convert dispersed adjudication into a single system that speaks with one voice and commands public confidence. (Para 1) Precedent - A judgment that attempts to resist binding authority undermines the unity of law, burdens litigants with avoidable expense and delay, and invites the perception that outcomes depend on the identity of the judge. In a constitutional judiciary, it is the law, as declared, that brings the conversation to a close. Courts have duty to apply precedent as it stands and give effect to appellate directions as they are framed. In that discipline lies the confidence of litigants and the credibility of courts. (Para 4) When a judgment minimizes a binding ratio, ignores missing statutory steps, and seeks to distinguish on immaterial facts, it creates an appearance of a reluctance to accept precedent. Such an approach conveys a measure of pettiness that is inconsistent with the detachment that judicial reasoning demands. (Para 14.5)

Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 - Section 2,3,35 -For vesting to occur under Section 3(1) of the MPFA Act on the footing of Section 2(f)(iii), a notice under Section 35(3) of the IFA must not only be issued but must also be served upon the landholder. The expression “issued” in Section 2(f)(iii) of the MPFA Act comprehends due service on the owner, because service alone triggers the owner’s right to object, including the jurisdictional plea that the land is not a forest within Section 2(c-i) of the MPFA Act, and obliges the State to consider such objection. We are unable to agree with the High Court that the reproduction of a draft text of Section 35(1) beneath a Section 35(3) show cause in the Gazette amounts to a concluded notification under Section 35(1) of the IFA. A notice that grants time for objections cannot coexist with a final decision under Section 35(1) without rendering the statutory hearing illusory. Mutation entries are ministerial in nature and cannot perfect an acquisition that lacks the statutory predicates. They neither create title in the State nor divest title from the private owner. (Para 13.1)

Interpretation of Statutes - Expropriatory legislation must be construed strictly -When a statute prescribes a manner of doing a thing, it must be done in that manner or not at all. (Para 13.3)

Legal Maxim - “Stare decisis et non quieta movere” - To stand by decisions and not to disturb settled matters, is not a slogan but a safeguard of equality before the law. Judges do not sit to settle scores. The gavel is an instrument of reason and not a weapon of reprisal. -" Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium” - It is in the public interest that litigation should come to an end, - The society has an interest in achieving finality, and finality from the apex court is the glue that holds a nationwide system of justice together. (Para 2,3)

LawLens - AI-Powered Legal Research for Indian Laws

Discover AI-powered legal research tools for Indian law professionals

AI-Powered Legal Research for Indian Laws