Supreme Court’s Emphasis on Judicial Consistency and Professional Ethics in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Dolly Satish Gandhi
Introduction
The decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Dolly Satish Gandhi delivered on 15th May 2026, while arising out of a dispute under the Motor Vehicles Act, has a much wider institutional impact. The immediate controversy related to whether Mediclaim amounts received by a claimant could be deducted from compensation payable. However, in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the judgment, the Court used the occasion to address systemic concerns about inconsistent judicial decisions, professional ethics of advocates, and the shared responsibility of the Bar and Bench in safeguarding the rule of law.
The judgment goes beyond the narrow confines of motor accident compensation and touches the very foundation of the justice delivery system—predictability, coherence, and integrity in judicial decision-making.
The Central Concern: Inconsistent Judicial Pronouncements
Why Consistency Matters
The Court underscored that the legitimacy of any judicial system does not stem merely from the existence of courts or codified laws. Its true strength lies in the belief of citizens that legal disputes will be resolved in a consistent, fair and predictable manner. The rule of law flourishes when:
- Legal principles are stable and not subject to erratic shifts.
- Decisions from courts reflect institutional coherence rather than fragmented views.
- Individuals and entities can order their affairs on the basis of settled legal norms.
When courts take divergent views on identical legal questions, this predictability erodes. The Supreme Court highlighted that inconsistency in judicial outcomes is not a mere technical defect; it shakes the very confidence of society in the fairness of the justice delivery system.
Problem of Conflicting Views by Coordinate Benches
A major issue flagged by the Supreme Court was the practice of different Benches within the same High Court arriving at conflicting conclusions on the same point of law. This often occurs:
- Without noticing earlier decisions of coordinate Benches.
- Without referring the matter to a larger Bench when disagreement arises.
- Without any structured institutional process to reconcile divergent views.
The Court observed that such uncoordinated outcomes generate confusion for:
- Subordinate courts and tribunals tasked with following High Court precedents.
- Government authorities required to implement the law.
- Assessees, businesses and citizens trying to understand their legal obligations and rights.
In such a climate, litigants begin to hunt for the most convenient precedent rather than the correct legal position. Justice then risks becoming contingent on which Bench is approached rather than on an objective and settled understanding of law.
Impact of Inconsistency on the Justice Delivery System
Systemic Consequences
The Supreme Court drew attention to the broader institutional fallout when identical legal questions are answered differently:
- Uncertainty in law: Neither adjudicating authorities nor regulated entities can reliably know which interpretation prevails.
- Escalation in litigation: Parties are incentivised to litigate further, hoping to secure a favourable view from a particular Bench.
- Compliance difficulties: Government departments, regulatory bodies and corporate entities struggle to frame policies or take decisions aligned with fluctuating interpretations.
- Erosion of public confidence: Repeatedly encountering split views weakens faith in the capacity of courts to speak with one institutional voice.
The Court, therefore, described consistency not as a matter of convenience, but as a core component of the rule of law.