“In Kunhayammed, (2000) 6 SCC 359 this Court held, “logic underlying Doctrine of Merger is, there cannot be more than one Decree or operative Orders governing same subject-matter at a given point of time. Doctrine of Merger is not of universal or unlimited application.”

This position of law has been recently affirmed and reiterated by a Three-Judge Bench in Khoday Distilleries Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 376. Kunhayammed was followed by a Three-Judge Bench in Chandi Prasad, (2004) 8 SCC 724. More recently, Chandi Prasad was followed by a Two-Judge Bench in Shanthi v. T.D. Vishwanathan, (2019) 11 SCC 419.”

– Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Surinder Pal Soni v. Sohan Lal (D), [Civil Appeal No. 5360 of 2019].

_____

P. Singaravelan v. District Collector, Tiruppur, (2020) 3 SCC 133 observed, “It is useful to recall, it is well-settled, dismissal of an SLP against an Order or Judgment of a Lower Forum is not an affirmation of same. If such an Order of this Court is non-speaking, it does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 or attract Doctrine of Merger.”

To similar effect are observations in C.G. Govindan v. State of Gujarat, (1998) 7 SCC 625; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Omaditya Verma, (2005) 4 SCC 424 and State of Orissa v. Dhirendra Sundar Das, (2019) 6 SCC 270.  

– Hon’ble Justice U.U. Lalit, State of U.P. v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, [Civil Appeal No. 228 of 2022] decided on 07.01.2022.

_____

Also see, Experion Developers Private Limited v. Himanshu Dewan, [Civil Appeal No. 1434 of 2023] decided on 18.08.2023.

_____

Court indubitably holds, if Special Leave was not granted and a SLP was dismissed by a reasoned or unreasoned Order, Order against which such SLP was filed would not merge with Order of dismissal. However, once Special Leave has been granted in a SLP, regardless of whether it is subsequently dismissed with or without reasons, Doctrine of Merger comes into play.

– Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Virendra Bahadur Katheria, [Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 7130 of 2024] decided on 15.07.2024.

_____

Also see, Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Abhishek Gupta, [Civil Appeal Nos. 7420-7421 of 2010] decided on 21.10.2024.

_____

Kunhayammed, (2000) 6 SCC 359 stands out as a guiding light wherein this Court summarized on Doctrine of Merger. Without reading and understanding Kunhayammed and blindly placing reliance on such ratio, as if it were a one-size-fits-all, could produce a result which may not be what interest of justice of a given case would demand. A couple of situations can be conceived of where Principle of Merger, as enunciated, understood as well as applied, could bring about undesirable and pernicious results.

– Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta, Vishnu Vardhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [Civil Appeal No. 7777 of 2023] decided on 23.07.2025.

_____

Khoday Distilleries Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 376 essentially ruled, Doctrine of Merger does not apply when a SLP is dismissed by way of a non-speaking Order. S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar, (2023) 7 SCC 740 was concerned, such dismissal by way of a non-speaking Order is not to be considered as law declared under Article 141 and, in every such dismissal, remedy of filing a SLP would still persist. The matter was Referred to a Larger Bench.

As noted in N.F. Railway Vending and Catering Contractors Association Lumding Division v. Union of India, SLP (Civil) Nos. 17501-17502 of 2024, Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P., (1999) 1 SCC 81 was not placed for consideration in S. Narahari.

The position in law, reading Upadhyay & Co. together with Sarguja Transport Service v. STAT, (1987) 1 SCC 5, seems to be this. A second SLP would not be maintainable at instance of a party, who elects to withdraw his earlier SLP without obtaining Leave to file a fresh SLP.

– Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta, Satheesh v. Federal Bank Ltd., [Civil Appeal Nos. 11752-11753 of 2025] decided on 23.09.2025.

_____

A non-speaking dismissal of an SLP signifies, this Court, in its discretion under Article 136, has declined to interfere. It does not amount to approval of reasoning of a Subordinate Forum. Doctrine of Merger does not apply to such dismissals. This position has been consistently affirmed by this Court.

– Hon’ble Justice R. Mahadevan, Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4211 of 2025] decided on 28.11.2025.  

_____

We may notice Balbir Singh v. Baldev Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 103 wherein Pardiwala J discussed in detail application of Doctrine of Merger.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol, Dr. Amit Arya v. Kamlesh Kumari, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20991 of 2022] decided on 19.12.2025.