The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinforced the doctrine of judicial consistency by holding that lower courts cannot ignore binding precedents from coordinate benches when deciding applications under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. This ruling clarifies a critical procedural obligation in criminal litigation, particularly in cases involving drug offenses under the NDPS Act.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Vikrant Singh Gaharwar, challenged the order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the Additional Special Judge (NDPS Act), Rewa, in MJCR No. 1843/2025, which dismissed his application under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The application sought relief under the provisions governing discharge or acquittal in criminal proceedings.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was prosecuted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
- He filed an application under Section 503 BNSS seeking discharge or acquittal on grounds of insufficient evidence
- The Additional Special Judge dismissed the application on 08.10.2025 without addressing a relevant precedent
- The petitioner contended that the court below failed to consider a binding decision of a coordinate Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
Procedural History
- 08.10.2025: Additional Special Judge, Rewa, dismissed the petitioner’s application under Section 503 BNSS in MJCR No. 1843/2025
- 16.04.2026: Criminal Revision No. 205 of 2026 filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
- 16.04.2026: Hearing conducted before Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal
- 16.04.2026: Judgment delivered by the High Court
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel, Shri Alok Narayan Pathak, argued that the lower court committed a legal error by not considering the decision in Praveen Kumar Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 (2) MPLJ (Cri.) 99, which had laid down the correct legal standard for evaluating applications under Section 503 BNSS. He submitted that the failure to apply a binding coordinate bench precedent rendered the order illegal and unsustainable.
For the Respondent/State
The State, represented by Shri Rajeev Kumar Pandey, defended the impugned order, asserting that the lower court had independently evaluated the evidence and that the precedent cited by the petitioner was not binding or applicable.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 08.10.2025 and a direction to the lower court to reconsider his Section 503 BNSS application in light of the precedent in Praveen Kumar Tiwari (supra).
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a lower court commits an illegality by failing to consider a binding precedent laid down by a coordinate Bench of the same High Court while deciding an application under Section 503 of the BNSS.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the principle of judicial comity and binding precedent, arguing that a coordinate Bench’s decision on a point of law is binding on all subordinate courts and other coordinate benches within the same High Court. He cited Praveen Kumar Tiwari (supra) as directly on point, holding that the lower court must assess the sufficiency of evidence at the Section 503 stage with due regard to the standard of reasonable possibility of conviction. The failure to apply this precedent, he submitted, amounted to a jurisdictional error.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the lower court had independently applied the law and that the precedent cited by the petitioner was not directly applicable to the factual matrix of the case. It further argued that the petitioner’s application was rightly dismissed on merits and that the reference to Praveen Kumar Tiwari was an afterthought.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of precedents within the High Court’s hierarchy and emphasized that a coordinate Bench’s decision on a point of law is binding unless overruled by a larger Bench. The Court observed that the lower court’s order contained no reference to Praveen Kumar Tiwari (supra), despite its direct relevance to the legal standard under Section 503 BNSS.
"Perusal of the impugned order dated 8/10/2025 shows that the Court below, while passing the impugned order, has not taken into consideration the aforesaid decision/order passed in the case of Praveen Kumar Tiwari (supra), therefore and as prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to file fresh application under Section 503 of BNSS and if such an application is filed by the petitioner before the Court below, the same shall be decided by the Court below in the light of law laid down by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Praveen Kumar Tiwari (supra)."
The Court held that judicial consistency is not a matter of discretion but a mandatory obligation. Ignoring a binding precedent on a point of law constitutes a failure to apply the law correctly and renders the order liable to be set aside. The Court declined to decide the merits of the Section 503 application itself, recognizing that the lower court was best placed to reassess it in light of the correct legal standard.
The Verdict
The criminal revision was allowed. The High Court set aside the order dated 08.10.2025 and directed the petitioner to file a fresh application under Section 503 of the BNSS before the same court. The lower court was directed to decide the fresh application strictly in accordance with the legal principles laid down in Praveen Kumar Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 (2) MPLJ (Cri.) 99. All pending applications were disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Precedent Is Not Optional
- Practitioners must cite binding coordinate bench precedents in all applications where legal standards are in dispute
- Lower courts are now on notice that failure to consider such precedents will result in automatic setting aside of orders
- This applies across all statutes, not just the BNSS or NDPS Act
Fresh Applications Are Permissible After Setting Aside
- A dismissed application under Section 503 BNSS may be refiled if the initial dismissal was due to non-consideration of binding precedent
- The refiled application must be heard afresh, not merely reviewed
- No limitation period is imposed for refiling in such circumstances, provided the original case is still pending
Precedent Control in Criminal Trials
- This judgment reinforces that criminal courts cannot operate in legal isolation
- Defense counsel should routinely file a list of binding precedents with applications under Sections 503, 227, and 239 BNSS
- Prosecution must now anticipate and distinguish binding precedents, not ignore them
