Preventing state authorities from asserting contradictory positions in court

State governments and instrumentalities of the Union are duty-bound to act as model litigants and are strictly prohibited from adopting inconsistent, contradictory, or oscillating legal positions across different stages of appellate litigation. When a state government unsuccessfully challenges an order of remand before the Supreme Court and faces dismissal, it cannot turn around in subsequent proceedings involving the private party and contend that the very same remand order was legally correct and unassailable. The doctrine against approbation and reprobation prevents public authorities from tailoring their legal stances conveniently to defeat the legitimate statutory rights of private landowners. State litigants must maintain institutional consistency, integrity, and fairness when defending administrative actions or property disputes before constitutional courts. Asserting opposing arguments before different coordinate benches or during successive hearings on the same subject matter constitutes an abuse of the judicial process that places an unfair burden on private citizens seeking justice. Courts will resolutely reject attempt by state entities to validate contradictory judicial outcomes that arose as a consequence of their own multi-layered appellate strategy. Holding state actors to strict standards of procedural consistency preserves public confidence in the administration of justice and protects litigants from endless legal gamesmanship. (Syed Mohammed Shabbuddin v. The Union of India & Others ETC. | 2026 INSC 231)