The doctrine of merger, a long-standing principle of Indian jurisprudence, operates on the premise that once a superior court adjudicates a matter, the judgment of the lower court merges into that of the higher forum. This doctrine, though fundamental for judicial hierarchy and finality, cannot be treated as an inflexible rule. The recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishnu Vardhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2025 INSC 884) has brought to light the necessity of evaluating the limits of this doctrine, particularly when issues of fraud and suppression of material facts come into play.
This article critically examines whether applying the doctrine of merger without scrutinising its boundaries is justified, using the Vishnu Vardhan case as a judicial lens.
Doctrine of Merger: An Overview
The doctrine of merger essentially means that when a higher court disposes of a matter on appeal, revision, or review, the decision of the lower court gets absorbed into the decision of the superior court. In Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [(2000) 6 SCC 359], the Supreme Court outlined that the doctrine applies only when the superior court has exercised its jurisdiction after granting leave and passed a judgment, thereby overruling or affirming the decision of the lower court.
However, the doctrine is not absolute. It does not apply where a superior court declines to entertain an appeal or where the issue before it is entirely different from the one adjudicated in the earlier round of litigation.
Case Background: Vishnu Vardhan v. State of U.P. (2025 INSC 884)
The Vishnu Vardhan case involved a protracted dispute over a parcel of land jointly purchased by three individuals—Vishnu Vardhan, T. Sudhakar, and Reddy Veeranna. Over time, Reddy claimed exclusive ownership through a series of legal manoeuvres that excluded Vishnu and Sudhakar from proceedings, particularly during a crucial writ petition that resulted in significant compensation being awarded solely to Reddy.
Relying on a compromise decree allegedly obtained through a Power of Attorney that had already been revoked, Reddy succeeded in altering the land records and asserting sole ownership. This decree became the basis for the High Court’s judgment, which was later partly affirmed by the Supreme Court in Reddy Veerana v. State of U.P. [(2022) 14 SCC 252], though limited only to the quantum of compensation.
Vishnu later filed a civil appeal and a writ petition under Article 32, claiming fraud and suppression of facts. Reddy contended that the earlier Supreme Court judgment had attained finality and, by operation of the doctrine of merger, could not be reopened.
Issue:
- Is Blind Application of Merger Justified?
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the doctrine of merger could be invoked to bar Vishnu’s civil appeal and writ petition, even when allegations of fraud were convincingly made out.
Fraud: An Exception to Finality
The Court reiterated the principle that “fraud unravels everything,” citing cases like S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1] and Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley [(1956) 1 QB 702]. Fraud, being a deliberate deception to secure unfair advantage, renders all associated proceedings null and void, even those upheld by higher courts.
The judgment decisively held that the doctrine of merger cannot be blindly applied where judgments have been obtained by fraud or suppression. Fraud, by its very nature, undermines the legitimacy of judicial orders and vitiates the entire process.
Necessary Parties and Natural Justice
One of the critical observations made by the Court was that Vishnu, despite being a co-owner, was not made a party in the writ petition filed by Reddy. Reddy obtained a favourable order from the High Court declaring him as the sole owner and securing enhanced compensation—all behind Vishnu’s back. This violated the principle of natural justice.
By not impleading necessary parties and suppressing ongoing litigation where the same title dispute was being contested, Reddy essentially misled the Court. The Supreme Court held that a judgment so procured cannot be shielded by invoking the doctrine of merger.
Boundaries of the Doctrine: What the Judgment Clarifies
The Supreme Court outlined several critical limitations to the application of the doctrine of merger:
- Fraud as a Bar: The doctrine of merger is not applicable when fraud has vitiated the underlying judgment, even if affirmed by the Supreme Court.
- Limited Scope of Adjudication: In Reddy Veerana, the Supreme Court had confined itself to the question of quantum of compensation, not ownership. Therefore, there was no merger on the question of title.
- Lack of Participation: Vishnu was not a party in the writ petition nor in the earlier Supreme Court appeal. As such, the finality attached to those decisions could not extend to him.
- Collateral Challenges Permissible: The Court observed that collateral challenges are valid where fraud is proven and fundamental rights under Article 300-A (right to property) are threatened.
- Judicial Caution Against Forum Shopping: Although Reddy accused Vishnu of forum shopping, the Court found that Reddy had, in fact, manipulated proceedings to his benefit through inconsistent and self-serving claims of joint and sole ownership.
Judicial Observations: Why Scrutiny is Essential
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Vishnu Vardhan strongly affirms that legal doctrines, no matter how established, must be applied with a degree of circumspection, especially when justice and equity are at stake. The following excerpts from the judgment underline this stance:
“The doctrine of merger is not inviolable… suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief.”
“Reddy tailored a situation to suit his convenience by not impleading Vishnu… an attempt to steal a march… does border on fraud.”
The Court also acknowledged the multiplicity of proceedings filed by Vishnu but attributed them to his efforts to rectify the injustice caused by Reddy’s misrepresentation. The Court was compelled to act to prevent the public exchequer from suffering further due to fraudulently obtained compensation.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed:
“Thus, the application of the doctrine of merger, in every case, should be accompanied by an awareness of its limitations and should not be wielded to close avenues for addressing genuine concerns. Prioritising justice and fairness should supersede an absolute insistence on finality. While the latter is commendable, the former is superior.
These doctrines, even though they are grounded in sound and justifiable public policy arguments, yet, do not limit the powers of the courts in cases where a larger public interest is at stake. They have been adapted to accommodate exceptions and qualifications, leaving room for acknowledging special circumstances, particularly in matters of public significance.”
Implications for Legal Practice
The Vishnu Vardhan judgment serves as a cautionary tale for both litigants and courts. It reinforces the idea that:
- The finality of litigation should not become a tool for injustice.
- Doctrines like merger must not be applied mechanically.
- Courts must remain vigilant to the conduct of parties, particularly when one party seeks relief based on documents or decrees obtained in the absence of necessary stakeholders.
In situations where a party has manipulated the judicial process, no amount of procedural shield—whether it be merger, limitation, or res judicata—should be allowed to override substantive justice.
Conclusion
The doctrine of merger plays a vital role in preserving the sanctity and consistency of judicial decisions. However, as emphasised in Vishnu Vardhan v. State of U.P. (2025 INSC 884), its application cannot be automatic or unqualified. Fraudulent conduct, suppression of facts, and exclusion of necessary parties from legal proceedings must act as red flags that alert courts to re-examine even seemingly settled matters.
Thus, it is not only unjustified but dangerous to apply the doctrine of merger without carefully scrutinising its boundaries. Justice is not merely about finality—it is about fairness. And in the rarest of rare cases, reopening a matter is not just permissible—it is imperative.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams