FRAUD VITIATES DOCTRINE OF MERGER: SUPREME COURT ALLOWS APPEAL AGAINST TAINTED HIGH COURT ORDER
In a significant ruling on July 23, 2025, in the case of Vishnu Vardhan@ Vishnu Pradhan Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (Civil Appeal No. 7777 of 2023)(Justice Dipankar Dutta, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) a Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court clarified that the doctrine of merger does not apply where a judgment is obtained by fraud. Essentially, doctrine of merger means when a higher court passes an order on an appeal or revision, the lower court’s decision is incorporated in the higher court’s decision. Therefore, any reference in the matter by the parties will mean that they are bound only by the higher court’s order. However, in this case, the Supreme Court noticed that the decision of the high court was obtained by the parties by concealing the facts and was therefore a fraud. The Court therefore held that the appeal to the Supreme Court from the earlier High Court Judgement could not be deemed to be final as it got vitiated by fraud, hence, neither the High Court or the subsequent Supreme Court judgement was final.
BRIEF FACTS
The dispute arose from a High Court Order passed in 2021 in favour of a litigant named Reddy, who had allegedly secured the Judgement by suppressing critical material facts that directly impacted the merits of the case. This suppression was neither discovered nor brought to light during the High Court proceedings. Subsequently, the Supreme Court, in 2022, upheld the High Court’s decision without being aware of the underlying fraud.
The Appellant, Vishnu, who was not a party to either the High Court or Supreme Court proceedings, later approached the Apex Court. He sought to challenge the 2021 High Court Order by filing a Civil Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, on the ground that the Judgement was vitiated by fraud. The case thus raised an unusual but significant legal question about the maintainability of such an appeal.
ISSUES OF LAW
The Supreme Court had to consider the following legal issues:
- Whether an appeal can lie before the Supreme Court against a High Court order that has already been affirmed by the Supreme Court in an earlier proceeding.
- Whether the doctrine of merger bars such an appeal, especially when the High Court’s order is later found to have been obtained by fraud.
- Whether the appropriate remedy lies in filing a review of the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment or a fresh appeal against the High Court’s tainted order.
REASONING OF THE COURT
- Doctrine of Merger Does Not Apply in Cases of Fraud
The Court emphasized that merger presupposes a valid and meritorious decision by the lower court. Where the lower court’s decision is the product of fraud or deceit, no legitimate merger can take place.
Justice Dipankar Datta, writing for the Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and himself, observed that since the High Court’s Order was not passed on the merits and was tainted by fraud, the Supreme Court’s affirmation in 2022 did not amount to a true merger. Consequently, the High Court’s order remained open to challenge through a regular civil appeal.
- Five Exceptions Where the Doctrine of Merger Would Not Apply
The Court proceeded to delineate five scenarios where the doctrine of merger would be inapplicable:
(i) Rare or Special Circumstances: If the Appellant is deprived of the right of appeal due to rare or extraordinary circumstances which merit judicial intervention.
(ii) Seminal Public Importance: If the case raises an issue of serious public importance, not previously addressed, which affects a wider public interest.
(iii) Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit: If allowing the prior ruling to stand would mean the act of the court itself prejudices an innocent party, thereby violating the principle that no one should suffer from the court’s mistake.
(iv) Fraud on the Court: If the previous decision (even that of the Supreme Court) was obtained by fraud played on the court.
(v) Irretrievable Harm to Public Interest: If letting the earlier decision stand would cause irreversible harm to the public interest, making judicial correction imperative.
These exceptions ensure that legal finality does not become a shield for injustice.
THE JUDGMENT
The Court held that the Appellant Vishnu was entitled to challenge the High Court’s 2021 Order by filing a Civil Appeal, notwithstanding its affirmation by the Supreme Court in 2022. Accordingly, both the 2021 High Court Order and the 2022 Supreme Court Judgment in Reddy Veerana were set aside.
The case was remanded to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits. The Court also directed that all affected parties, including Vishnu and another individual, Sudhakar, be impleaded to ensure a comprehensive and just decision.
ANALYSIS
This decision is a reaffirmation of the Supreme Court’s long-standing principle that fraud vitiates even the most solemn judicial acts. It aligns with earlier precedents where the Court has held that no litigant can be allowed to benefit from deceitful conduct.
Importantly, the Judgment provides much-needed clarity on the limits of the doctrine of merger, which traditionally extinguishes the lower court’s order once affirmed by a superior court. By carving out clear exceptions, the Court has ensured that legal doctrines do not become tools of oppression or injustice.
Additionally, the Judgment reinforces the constitutional mandate under Article 136, which grants the Supreme Court wide powers to do complete justice. It also safeguards the rights of non-parties who may suffer grave prejudice due to judgments obtained behind their backs.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as a robust safeguard against the misuse of judicial processes. It sends a clear message: the finality of judgments cannot be used to protect fraudulent gains.
In setting aside the tainted High Court Order and its own previous affirmation of that order, the Court demonstrated that procedural doctrines like merger must yield to substantive justice when fraud is involved. This Judgment will likely serve as an authoritative precedent for future cases where similar issues of fraud and merger arise.
SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “What Is Waqf? Legal Meaning, Rights & Key Judgments in India” | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma| Advocate Sushila Ram Varma| can be viewed at the link below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKJgw5k4kQU