Supreme Court Slams APTEL for Reversing Binding Precedent

Supreme Court Slams APTEL for Reversing Binding Precedent

The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) that reviewed and overturned its own five-year-old decision on an issue already settled by the top court. A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran strongly criticized the move, calling it a "gross breach of judicial discipline" and warning that such actions undermine judicial consistency and public confidence.

The original ruling by APTEL had aligned with a binding Supreme Court precedent on tariff determination and regulatory compensation. Five years later, APTEL revisited the issue and reversed its stance, prompting a challenge in the Supreme Court. The Bench emphasized that tribunals are bound by the doctrine of precedent (stare decisis), especially when the apex court has laid down a clear principle.

"It is not often, but we do come across orders akin to the one impugned, which raise serious doubts in the mind of the bench about the independence of the tribunal,"

the Court observed, suggesting potential institutional overreach or undue influence. The verdict reinforces that tribunals cannot act as self-correction forums disregarding higher judicial authority. It also signals increasing scrutiny of quasi-judicial bodies' adherence to legal hierarchy.

For practitioners, this decision underscores that tribunal decisions contrary to Supreme Court precedent are vulnerable to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution. Counsel appearing before tribunals must rigorously cite binding precedents, and parties should consider early intervention if tribunals attempt to reopen settled law. The ruling may prompt reforms in tribunal procedures to prevent unilateral reversals.