Impermissibility of contradictory appellate orders arising from a single decree

It is an established principle of procedural law and judicial consistency that appellate courts cannot pass contradictory or mutually inconsistent orders in separate appeals challenging the exact same underlying decree or judgment. When a single judgment or decree passed by a trial court or a learned single judge is assailed in appeal by different affected respondents, those appeals must be adjudicated in a manner that maintains legal harmony and avoids conflicting operational directions. Permitting one division bench to affirm a single judge's decree while another division bench later sets aside or remands the very same decree creates systemic confusion and compromises judicial certainty. The integrity of the judicial process demands that once an appellate bench resolves a challenge against an order, subsequent benches dealing with parallel appeals arising from the same order must align their decisions with the established appellate outcome. Courts must prevent a situation where two diametrically opposed decrees govern the exact same property, subject matter, or set of litigating parties. Ensuring uniformity in appellate outcomes safeguards the authority of judicial mandates and guarantees equal treatment under the law. When such irreconcilable appellate conflicts occur, higher courts will intervene to restore consistency by setting aside the contradictory subsequent order and aligning the relief with the affirmed decision. (Syed Mohammed Shabbuddin v. The Union of India & Others ETC. | 2026 INSC 231)