High Court cannot entertain clarification applications concerning judgments set aside by the Supreme Court.

The applicants sought leave to file a Miscellaneous Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court for directions and clarification concerning the High Court’s judgment dated 17 February 2025 in Special Civil Application No. 7754 of 2022. They sought, inter alia, clarification that the judgment operated retrospectively only for the 129 applicants and that the settlement dated 16 July 2025 was not binding upon them.

The High Court judgment had been challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 9986 of 2025, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 10301 of 2025. On 1 August 2025, the Supreme Court took the settlement dated 16 July 2025 on record, set aside the Tribunal’s award and the High Court’s judgment, and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Thereafter, three miscellaneous applications were filed before the Supreme Court in the disposed civil appeal. By a common order dated 12 January 2026, the Supreme Court granted permission to file the miscellaneous applications and allowed the applications seeking clarification and directions, leaving all factual and legal issues open. However, it rejected the prayer to recall the order dated 1 August 2025.

The applicants nevertheless approached the Gujarat High Court for leave to file an application seeking directions concerning the superseded High Court judgment.

Whether the Gujarat High Court could grant leave to file a miscellaneous application seeking clarification or directions concerning its judgment dated 17 February 2025 after that judgment had been set aside by the Supreme Court.

Whether the applicants’ proposed directions—concerning the applicability of the settlement and the continued binding effect of the High Court judgment—could be entertained by the High Court when the Supreme Court had already disposed of the appeal and passed subsequent orders on clarification and direction applications.

The Court applied the principle of judicial hierarchy and the binding effect of an appellate court’s order: once the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal’s award and the High Court’s judgment, the High Court could not entertain an application seeking clarification or modification of the superseded judgment.

The Court further applied the principle that questions concerning the interpretation, implementation, or clarification of an order passed by the Supreme Court must be addressed before the Supreme Court itself, and cannot be re-agitated before the subordinate court.

The proposed application sought directions effectively reaffirming the High Court’s judgment dated 17 February 2025 and limiting the effect of the settlement. However, that judgment had already been set aside by the Supreme Court while disposing of Civil Appeal No. 10301 of 2025 in terms of the settlement dated 16 July 2025.

The Supreme Court subsequently dealt with the applicants’ grievance by permitting the filing of miscellaneous applications, leaving the factual and legal issues open, while expressly refusing to recall its order dated 1 August 2025. In these circumstances, the Gujarat High Court held that the applicants’ proposed directions were, in substance, requests for clarification of the Supreme Court’s disposal order. The High Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain them or grant leave for filing such an application before itself.

Both the application seeking leave to file the proposed application and the application seeking directions were accordingly rejected.