Only the Supreme Court Can Declare Its Judgment Cannot Be Cited as Precedent, Rules Delhi High Court in Union of India v. Om Prakash

Case: Union of India and Another v. Om Prakash
Citation: 2026:DHC:9162-DB
Date of Judgment: 15 October 2026
Court: High Court of Delhi
Coram: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar
Proceedings: W.P.(C) 5071/2025 with CM APPLs. 23239/2025 and 23242/2025

Court Observation

“This caveat is, therefore, unique to the Supreme Court, as its decisions are constitutionally binding by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.”

Summary

Om Prakash, a scientist in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, claimed ante-dating of his in situ promotion under the Flexible Complementing Scheme — as Scientist C with effect from 1 January 2006 and as Scientist D with effect from 1 January 2010. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed his application on 29 January 2024. The Union of India challenged the order, relying on a caveat in the Delhi High Court’s own earlier judgment in Nakul Dev v. Union of India that it could not be cited as a precedent, and arguing that the recruitment rules and Department of Personnel and Training memoranda bar retrospective promotion.

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order. It held that the caveat in the Nakul Dev judgment could not be pressed into service, since only the Supreme Court can declare that its judgment will not be cited as a precedent. Following Nakul Dev, the Court upheld the ante-dating of the respondent’s promotion as Scientist C to 1 January 2006, with his further promotion as Scientist D to be assessed on suitability.

Key Holdings

• Only the Supreme Court can give a caveat that its judgment will not be cited as a precedent; such a power is not available to any other court.
• A caveat that a decision “cannot be cited as a precedent” is unique to the Supreme Court, whose decisions are constitutionally binding by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
• Even if the facts of a case are similar to those in an earlier Supreme Court judgment, a lower court cannot treat that judgment as binding precedent if the Supreme Court itself has clarified that it should not apply in such circumstances.
• If other courts could declare that their judgments will not be cited as precedents, similarly placed litigants could receive different treatment — “Ex facie, this would be impermissible.”
• Where the delay in assessment was wholly attributable to the Ministry, it cannot rely on the bar on retrospective promotion to defeat the claim, applying Union of India v. S.K. Murti.

Directions Issued

• The Tribunal’s order granting the respondent ante-dated in situ promotion as Scientist C with effect from 1 January 2006 was upheld, with the interview requirement dispensed with.
• For promotion as Scientist D with effect from 1 January 2010, the respondent’s claim is subject to his being found suitable on the remaining Flexible Complementing Scheme parameters, as an interview cannot be held after his retirement.

Background

The respondent worked as Scientist B in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, was granted in situ promotion as Scientist C with effect from 2 July 2007, and superannuated as Scientist C on 30 June 2013. He approached the Tribunal claiming ante-dating of his in situ promotion as Scientist C to 1 January 2006 and as Scientist D to 1 January 2010, relying on a Tribunal judgment dated 5 March 2012 in OA 1861/2010 that the High Court had upheld. The Tribunal allowed his application on 29 January 2024, leading to the Union’s writ petition.

Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.