Doctrine of Merger

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News?  

Recently, Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan held that "the doctrine of merger would not apply to the situation where the impugned judgment/order was obtained by fraud" while allowing a civil appeal against a High Court order that had been earlier affirmed by the Supreme Court. 

• The Supreme Court held in the matter of Vishnu Vardhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025). 

What was the Background of Vishnu Vardhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) Case? 

• One party obtained a High Court order in 2021 in his favor by suppressing material facts that directly bore the merits of the case. 
• The High Court's decision was subsequently approved by the Supreme Court in 2022 without knowledge of the fraud committed. 
• The appellant, who was not arrayed as a party in the original proceedings, sought to challenge the Supreme Court's 2022 order. 
• The appellant argued that the Supreme Court's order was vitiated by fraud due to the material suppression by Reddy before the High Court. 
• The central legal question was whether the appellant could file a regular civil appeal against the High Court's order or was required to file a review petition against the Supreme Court's order. 
• Reddy contended that due to the doctrine of merger, the High Court order had merged with the Supreme Court's order, making any appeal against the High Court order non-maintainable. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan rejected the argument that the doctrine of merger would bar the appeal. 
• Justice Dipankar Datta, writing for the bench, observed that since the High Court's decision was "tainted by fraud and not rendered on merits", its subsequent affirmation by the Supreme Court did not result in a true merger. 
• The Court emphasized that the High Court's order remained open to challenge through a regular civil appeal despite the Supreme Court's earlier affirmation. 
• The Supreme Court noted that "fraud unravels everything" and that no party should suffer due to fraud committed by another litigant in judicial proceedings. 
• The Court applied the principle of "actus curiae neminem gravabit" (no party should suffer due to the court's mistake or fraud by another litigant). 
• The Supreme Court set aside both the High Court's 2021 order and its own 2022 decision in Reddy Veerana, restoring the case for fresh adjudication. 

Five Exceptions to Doctrine of Merger: 

Exception 1: Rare or Special Circumstances 

• When a party's right of appeal should not be foreclosed because of very rare or special circumstances projected before the court. 

Exception 2: Seminal Public Importance 

• When the appeal raises an issue of seminal public importance that was not available to be raised by the appellant in the earlier round of litigation, and such issue requires resolution in the greater public interest. 

Exception 3: Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit 

• When refusal to interfere would result in offending the principle that no party should suffer due to the court's mistake or fraud by another litigant. 

Exception 4: Fraud on Court 

• When the earlier appellate decision is vitiated because of fraud having been practiced on the court by a party in whose favor the ruling was made. 

Exception 5: Public Interest Jeopardy 

• When public interest would be put to extreme jeopardy by reason of irretrievable consequences if warranted interference were declined solely based on the doctrine of merger. 

Key Legal Principles Established: 

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that fraud vitiates all judicial proceedings, regardless of the level at which it occurs. 
• Suppression of material facts that directly bear upon the merits constitutes fraud on the court. 
• When a lower court's decision is obtained by fraud, its affirmation by a higher court does not result in true merger. 
• In fraud cases, aggrieved parties can file regular appeals against the fraudulently obtained order rather than being limited to review petitions. 

What is the Doctrine of Merger? 

About: 

• The Doctrine of Merger is a well-established principle in Indian jurisprudence whereby when a superior court affirms the decision of a subordinate court, the subordinate court's order merges with the superior court's order. 
• Once merger occurs, the lower court's order loses its independent existence and only the superior court's order remains enforceable. 
• The doctrine ensures finality to litigation and prevents parties from challenging the same order in multiple forums. 
• Generally, after merger, parties cannot file appeals against the lower court's order but must seek review or other appropriate remedies against the superior court's order. 

Rationale Behind the Doctrine:  

• To maintain judicial hierarchy  
• To prevent conflicting decisions on the same matter  
• To ensure finality in litigation  
• To promote judicial economy by avoiding multiple proceedings 

What are the Landmark Cases on Doctrine of Merger? 

• State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. (1967)  
  • This case established that when a decree is appealed, and the appellate court modifies it in any manner, the decree of the trial court merges with that of the appellate court.  
• Gojer Bros. (P) Ltd. v. Ratan Lal Singh (1974)  
  • The Supreme Court held that even if an appeal is dismissed without a speaking order, the doctrine of merger still applies.