Article 141

 Article 141 of the Indian constitution.

Indian law is largely based on English common law because of the long period of British

colony influence during the British raj. Precedents became a source of law only during the

British rule in India. The government of India act 1935 established a federal court and Privy

Council whose decisions were binding on all the other courts in the country and this was the

beginning of using precedents in making judgments, soon with passage of time precedents

acquired a lot of importance.

Precedent form the primary source of law these days, they tend to strengthen the laws and

judicial system of the country and help us to improve the formation of laws of the country

and make them suitable according to the situations. But the basic problem in its application is

the unavailability of proper records for its effective implementation, improving which will

improve the situation and make the system more flexible.

According to black’s law dictionary:

Rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and there

after referred to deciding similar cases.

Article 141 Constitution of India: Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts.

The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of

India.

Article 141 of the Constitution of India stipulates that the law declared by the Supreme Court

shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. Thus, the general principles laid

down, by the Supreme Court are binding on each individual including those who are not a

party to an order. In a number of judgements the Supreme Court has emphasized the

importance and validity of Article 141 of the Constitution within the ambit of following

certain general rules, i.e. Obiter-Dictum’, Ratio-Decidendi’, Stare decisis’, Per incuriam’

Prospective Overruling and Legislative provisions etc.

Obiter Dictum

Obiter dictum, Latin phrase meaning “that which is said in passing,” an incidental statement.

Specifically, in law, it refers to a passage in a judicial opinion which is not necessary for the

decision of the case before the court. Such statements lack the force of precedent but may

nevertheless be significant.

Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin. When a court faces a legal

argument, if a previous court has ruled on the same or a closely related issue, then the court

will make their decision in alignment with the previous court’s decision.

Binding Precedent

The reasons which were indicated in the judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court

have not merged in the order of the Supreme Court.

The order of the Supreme Court only dealt with the quantum of costs of which were awarded

by the High Court. The statement of the law which was contained in the judgement of the

Division Bench would be a binding Precedent on subsequent Benches of a co-ordinate or

lesser strength of the High Court but is open for reconsideration by a Full Bench of three

Judges; Paresh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2015 A11 10 (FB).

Binding jurisdiction of the supreme court

It is impermissible for the High Court to 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 Court in India, it is 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, Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan

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 States

Government. Even a notice, as required by the Civil Procedure Code, was not served upon

the Advocate General; State of Gujarat v. Kasturchand Chhotalal Shah.

A ruling making specific reference to earlier binding precedent may or may not be correct;

Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra.