Harmonization of multiple writ appeals arising from identical single judge orders

When multiple writ appeals are preferred by different government respondents—such as the Union of India and a State Government—against a single comprehensive judgment of a single judge, the appellate court must ensure that all such appeals are harmonized to produce a single, unified legal result. Permitting separate division benches to hear parallel writ appeals against the exact same judgment at different times increases the risk of conflicting orders, procedural chaos, and contradictory operational mandates. High Court registries and appellate benches must exercise procedural vigilance to tag, batch, and hear all interconnected writ appeals together to ensure a uniform judicial evaluation of the single judge's decree. In the event that separate orders are inadvertently passed in parallel writ appeals resulting in conflicting decrees, the appellate outcome that was first finalized and validated by the Supreme Court must take precedence and govern the entire case. Higher judicial forums will intervene to set aside any subsequent conflicting appellate order, thereby bringing all parallel proceedings into strict conformity with the initial, finalized appellate judgment. This harmonization principle guarantees that a single lower court judgment results in one consistent, enforceable legal outcome across all litigating public and private parties. (Syed Mohammed Shabbuddin v. The Union of India & Others ETC. | 2026 INSC 231)