ARTICLE 141 : LAW DECLARED BY SUPREME COURT TO BE BINDING ON ALL

COURTS
Dr.K.Sivananda Kumar
The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of
India.

The main object of doctrine of precedent is that the law of the land should be clear, certain and
consistent so that the Courts shall follow it without any hesitation.

In Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (AIR 1989 SC 1933), the Supreme Court held that “the
doctrine of binding precedent has the merit of promoting a certainty and consistency in judicial
decisions, and enables an organic development of the law, besides providing assurance to the
individual as to the consequence of transactions forming part of daily affairs and, therefore, the
need for a clear and consistent enunciation of legal principle in the decisions of a Court.”

In India, whenever, a judgment is pronounced on a question of law, the judgment has to refer to
some provision in the written law and then proceed to interpret or expound that provision in the
written law. There is no provision in the written law of India, on the interpretation of which it
can be held that judgments of Single Judges are binding on other Single Judges of the same High
Court and that judgments of Division Court are also binding on other Division Courts of the
same High Court, but they are not binding on Division Courts consisting of more members than
the earlier Division Court. As to the binding nature of decisions of Courts Article 141 of
the Constitution is the sole provision and the Constitution deliberately did not go
beyond Article 141.

Binding on all courts: The words ‘binding on all courts in India’ though wide enough to include
the Supreme Court, do not include the Supreme Court itself, as it is not bound by its own
judgments but is free to re-consider them in appropriate cases. Article 141 has the effect, in
addition to investing the decisions of the Supreme Court with a binding force, of creating a


Asst. Professor, School of Law, Christ University, Bengaluru. E-mail : siva.faculty@gmail.com, Ph.No.
9441715270.

:: 1 ::

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3517950

constitutional organ whose declaration of law shall be binding on all courts in the Republic.
Procedural irregularity cannot affect the binding nature of the Supreme Court decision.

Law having been declared by the Supreme Court, it is the duty of the High Court to act in
accordance with Article 141 and to apply it by giving reasons to justify whatever its view. The
High Court cannot overrule the decision of the Apex Court on the ground that the Supreme Court
laid down the legal position without considering any other point. It is not only a matter of
discipline for the High Courts in India, but also mandate of the Constitution as provided in article
141 that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory
of India. What is binding is the ratio of the decision and not any finding on facts, or the opinion
of the court on any question which was not required to be decided in a particular case; it is the
principle found out upon a reading of the judgment as a whole in the light of the questions before
the court, and not particular words or sentences.
When the Supreme Court decides a principle it would be the duty of the High Court or a
subordinate court to follow the decision of the Supreme Court. A judgment of the High Court
which refuses to follow the decision and directions of the Supreme Court or seeks to revive a
decision of the High Court which had been set aside by the Supreme Court is a nullity.

Judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and the tendency of the subordinate courts of not
applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which necessarily have the effect
of granting wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the parties is strongly deprecated.

A mere reading of article 141 brings into sharp focus its expanse and its all pervasive nature.
Where numerous petitions are disposed of by a common judgment and only one appeal is filed,
the parties to the common judgment could very well have and should have intervened and could
have requested the court to hear them also. They cannot be heard to say that the decision was
taken behind their back or profess ignorance of the fact that an appeal had been filed by the State
against the common judgment. By setting aside the common judgment of the High Court, the
mandamus issued by the High Court is rendered ineffective not only in one case but in all cases.

:: 2 ::

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3517950

It is not for any court to tell a superior court how a matter should be decided when an appeal is
taken against its decision to that superior Court. Such a course would be subversive of judicial
discipline on the bedrock of which the judicial system is founded and finality is attached and
orders are obeyed. A High Court cannot question the correctness of the decision of the Supreme
Court even though the point sought before the High Court was not considered by the Supreme
Court.

In Rajiv Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devilal University and another ((2008) 9 SCC 284),
Supreme Court held that “the decision of a court is a precedent, if it lays down some principle of
law supported by reasons. Mere casual observations or directions without laying down any
principle of law and without giving reasons do not amount to a precedent”.

Binding on Government: Where a State Government is a party and is duly represented before the
Supreme Court, the decision of the Court declaring a State Act to be ultra vires shall be binding
on that State Government, even if a notice, as required by the Civil Procedure Code, was not
served upon the Advocate General.

The following categories of decisions of the Supreme Court have no binding force:

a) Obiter dicta, i.e., statements which are not part of the ratio decidendi.
b) A decision per incuriam, i.e., without any knowledge of the terms of a statute or rule
having the force of a statute.
c) A decision passed sub-silento, i.e., without any argument or debate on the relevant
question.
d) An order made with the consent of the parties, and with the reservation that it should not
be treated as a precedent.

It is not proper to regard a word, a clause or a sentence occurring in a judgment of the Supreme
Court, divorced from its context, as containing a full exposition of the law on a question when
the question did not even fall to be answered in that judgment.

:: 3 ::

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3517950

Role of the Supreme Court: When the Supreme Court as the apex adjudicator declaring the law
for the country and invested with constitutional credentials under article 141, clarifies a confused
juridical situation, its substantial role is of legal mentor of the nation. It is inevitable in
hierarchical system of courts that there are decisions of the supreme appellate tribunal which do
not attract the unanimous approval of all members of the judiciary. But the judicial system only
works if someone is allowed to have the last word and that last word, once spoken, is loyally
accepted.

In Lalu Jela and Ors. v State Of Gujarat (AIR 1962 Guj 250) the Supreme Court held that “it
is difficult to restrict the scope of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and to hold
that Article 141 of the Constitution applies only when the Supreme Court makes a declaration of
law which High Court Judges feel was necessary for the determination of the question of law. It
is also not open to Judges of a High Court to criticise a judgment of the Supreme Court on the
ground that they did not apply their mind to the construction of various parts of the section and
that therefore their observations are only casual and not binding. Of course a distinction has to be
made between a declaration of law and mere observations not declaring the law on any point.
But once the Supreme Court makes a declaration of law, that is binding on all the subordinate
Courts. Principles of obiter, per incuriam and distinguishable facts which may perhaps apply to
the decisions of Courts of coordinate jurisdiction cannot be applied to declarations of law made
by the Supreme Court and such principles cannot restrict the scope of Article 141 of
the Constitution. Judges of the Supreme Court are wise enough and careful enough not to make
unqualified declarations of law which have no general application but which apply only to the
facts of the case decided by them. If a declaration of law has been made by the Supreme Court, it
is also not open to subordinate Courts to hold that declaration of law is not binding, because on
facts, the case decided by the Supreme Court is distinguishable from file case before the
subordinate Court. All subordinate Courts to the Supreme Court are bound by all declarations of
law made by the Supreme Court, even when on facts the case decided by the Supreme Court is
distinguishable from the facts before the subordinate Court. If the observations of the Supreme
Court amounted to a declaration of law, it is binding on all subordinate Courts as provided
in Article 141 of the Constitution of India.”

:: 4 ::

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3517950

Principle of stare decisis: Consistency is the cornerstone of the administration of justice. It is
consistency which creates confidence in the system and this consistency can never be achieved
without respect to the rule of finality. It is with a view to achieve consistency in judicial
pronouncements; the courts have evolved the rule of precedents, principle of stare decisis, etc.
These rules and principles are based on public policy and if these are not followed by courts then
there will be chaos in the administration of justice.

Is Supreme Court judgments is a legislation? : The Supreme Court judgment cannot be treated
as “a sort of legislation by Parliament” overlooking the binding nature of the law declared by it,
mandating under article 141, every court subordinate to it to accept it. The law declared by the
Supreme Court binds courts in India but it should always be remembered that the Court does not
enact.

***

:: 5 ::

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3517950