Why in news?
On 29 October 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment clarifying that the doctrine of merger is not an inflexible rule applicable in every case. The bench, comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, was hearing a contempt petition filed by M/s Khurana Brothers arising from a civil appeal. The Court held that the applicability of the doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate order and the provisions of the statute involved.
Background
The doctrine of merger is a common‑law principle developed to maintain decorum in the judicial hierarchy. It states that when a superior court passes an order in an appeal or revision, the order of the lower court merges into the superior court’s order. As a result, only the higher court’s decision remains operative and enforceable. The doctrine is not codified in statute but has evolved to ensure that there is only one effective order on a given subject.
Case summary
- Facts: The case originated from an intra‑court appeal before a division bench of the Allahabad High Court. M/s Khurana Brothers had contested a single‑judge order. When the matter reached the Supreme Court in January 2023, counsel for the appellants withdrew the appeal, seeking restoration of the single‑judge’s order. The Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal and recorded that the parties would work out their rights under the high court’s single‑judge order.
- Contempt petition: In 2025, the company filed a contempt petition in the Supreme Court alleging non‑compliance with the restored single‑judge order. It argued that the doctrine of merger applied because the Supreme Court had passed an order after granting leave to appeal, thereby merging the single‑judge’s order into the apex court’s order.
- Court’s reasoning: The bench held that the doctrine of merger is not of rigid and universal application. The extent of merger depends on the nature of the superior court’s jurisdiction and the subject matter of the appeal or revision. In this case, since the appeal was withdrawn and the Supreme Court merely recorded the withdrawal, the single‑judge’s order continued to operate. Any alleged contempt, therefore, should be addressed before the high court.
Significance
- Clarifies scope: The ruling reiterates that the doctrine of merger is context‑dependent. It cannot be automatically invoked whenever there are orders from both lower and higher courts.
- Preserves judicial discipline: By emphasising the boundaries of the doctrine, the judgment ensures that litigants approach the appropriate forum for enforcement of orders, maintaining the hierarchical integrity of the courts.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that legal doctrines should not be applied mechanically. Parties must examine the nature of appellate orders and statutory provisions to determine where enforcement or contempt proceedings lie.
Source: LawBeat