Topic
Judicial consistency in Indian law refers to the obligation of coordinate benches of courts to follow previously decided precedents on identical legal questions to ensure uniformity in judgments.
Karnataka High Court rules that bail granted in a case cannot be cancelled merely because the accused is subsequently arrested in another FIR. The Court emphasized judicial consistency, holding that a coordinate bench's bail order in the new case must be respected unless fresh, compelling grounds emerge.
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that denying parole to prisoners while granting identical 40-day parole to similarly situated inmates violates Article 14. This establishes a binding precedent that administrative discretion in parole matters cannot override judicial consistency when coordinate benches have already set the standard, directly impacting thousands of incarcerated individuals across Rajasthan.
The ITAT Ahmedabad has ruled that companies claiming weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) may compute the deduction on gross scientific research expenditure, without reducing it by income earned from contract research. This clarifies a long-standing ambiguity and benefits pharmaceutical and tech firms that outsource R&D, ensuring they receive full incentive for domestic innovation spending.
The ITAT Ahmedabad has ruled that the presence of religious elements like prayer halls and rituals such as Pran Pratistha and Havan does not disqualify a trust from tax exemption under Sections 11 and 12, provided its primary activities remain oriented toward public welfare in education, medical relief, and financial aid. This clarifies that charitable intent, not religious form, determines eligibility - a critical precedent for trusts blending spiritual and social service.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that dismissing a Section 503 BNSS application without considering a binding precedent from a coordinate bench renders the order illegal. This establishes a mandatory procedural duty for trial courts to respect binding judicial authority, reinforcing consistency in criminal procedure and protecting litigants from arbitrary adjudication.
ITAT Dehradun reinforces that once a coordinate bench quashes a revisionary order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, the same order cannot be revived or re-exercised by the CIT(A). The ruling underscores judicial finality, preventing repetitive revisionary actions on identical grounds and protecting assessees from procedural harassment.