Article 141 of the Constitution of India

Article 141 of the Constitution of India: The Doctrine of Binding Precedent

Introduction

Article 141 of the Constitution of India stands as a cornerstone of the Indian judicial system, enshrining the doctrine of stare decisis, or binding precedent. It mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court of India shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. This provision ensures uniformity, consistency, and predictability in the application of law across the nation, fostering judicial discipline and upholding the rule of law. The concept of judicial precedents, inherited from the English common law system, is not merely a matter of judicial comity but a constitutional command in the Indian context, primarily through Article 141 for the Supreme Court and impliedly for High Courts concerning their subordinate judicature.[1]

The significance of Article 141 lies in its role in developing a coherent and authoritative body of jurisprudence. By establishing the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter and expounder of law, the Constitution ensures that its declarations serve as guiding principles for all other judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, thereby contributing to legal certainty and public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Constitutional Mandate of Article 141

Article 141 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:

"141. 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."

The expression "law declared" signifies the principles of law or the interpretation of legal provisions enunciated by the Supreme Court. This declaration becomes the authoritative legal standard applicable throughout the country. As affirmed in Director Of Settlements, A.P And Others v. M.R Apparao And Another, any law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within India, ensuring a uniform interpretation and application.[2] The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Dhirju Ram v. Sham Singh reiterated the all-pervasive nature and expanse of this constitutional provision.[3]

What Constitutes "Law Declared"?

Understanding what precisely constitutes the "law declared" under Article 141 is crucial. It primarily refers to the ratio decidendi of a judgment, and not every observation made by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The binding element of a Supreme Court decision is its ratio decidendi, which is the underlying legal principle or rule necessary for the decision of the case. It is distinct from obiter dicta, which are observations made by the court that are not essential to the decision and, while potentially persuasive, do not possess binding authority.[2] In MR NEERAJ VERMA S/O LATE MR. G K VERMA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, it was clarified:

"A decision is binding not because of its final conclusions or directions but because of the ratio. The rule which is deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case constitutes the ratio decidendi."[1]

The Allahabad High Court, in Chandrapal Singh v. State Of U.P. And Another, referencing Natural Resources Allocation, In Re, Special Reference No.1 of 2012, emphasized that the "law declared" has to be construed as a principle of law that emanates from a judgment, or an interpretation of a law or judgment by the Supreme Court, upon which the case is decided. Ascertaining the ratio requires careful consideration of "not only what has been said therein but the text and context in which it was said."[4]

Speaking Orders and the Rule of Sub Silentio

For a declaration of law to be binding under Article 141, it must emanate from a "speech," i.e., a speaking order where the Court consciously adjudicates upon a point of law. In S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State Of T.N And Another, the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of precedents is limited to the decision itself and what is necessarily involved in it.[5] A decision is said to pass sub silentio "when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the court or present to its mind." Such a decision, rendered without conscious deliberation on the legal point, does not constitute a binding precedent.[5]

Dismissal of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in Limine

The question of whether a dismissal of an SLP in limine (at the threshold, without detailed reasons) constitutes "law declared" has been subject to judicial scrutiny. Generally, an order dismissing an SLP in limine without a speaking order does not amount to a declaration of law under Article 141. As discussed in S. Shanmugavel Nadar, which referred to Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359, the doctrine of merger is not universally applicable, and the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum is key.[5] While the High Court in State Of Manipur v. Thingujam Brojen Meetei observed that an SLP dismissal concluded the matter,[6] the established principle is that a non-speaking dismissal of an SLP does not affirm the reasoning of the High Court judgment nor does it lay down any law by the Supreme Court itself.

The Binding Nature: Scope and Hierarchy

The binding force of the law declared by the Supreme Court extends to all judicial bodies and authorities within India, underpinning the hierarchical structure of the judiciary and ensuring adherence to established legal principles.

Binding on All Courts and Tribunals

Article 141 explicitly states that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on "all courts." This includes High Courts, subordinate courts, and various tribunals across the country.[2] The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in M/s Gilco Exports Ltd., Chandigarh v. ACIT correctly noted that the status of decisions being binding on all courts in the country by virtue of Article 141 is reserved only for the decisions of the Supreme Court.[7] While High Court decisions are binding on subordinate courts and tribunals within their respective territorial jurisdictions (as a principle of stare decisis, noted in cases like Km. Ruby Mausoof v. State Of U.P.[8] citing East India Commercial Co. Ltd. Calcutta v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta AIR 1962 SC 1893), Article 141 specifically pertains to the pan-India binding effect of Supreme Court pronouncements.

Primacy over Executive Actions and Circulars

The law declared by the Supreme Court also prevails over any executive instructions, circulars, or administrative orders that are contrary to it. In Commissioner Of Central Excise, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries, the Supreme Court emphatically stated:

"circulars of the Board cannot prevail over the law laid down by this Court... The law declared by this Court is supreme law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India."[9]

This ensures that administrative actions remain subservient to the law as interpreted by the apex court, reinforcing the supremacy of law.

Judicial Discipline and Hierarchical Integrity

Article 141 is fundamental to maintaining judicial discipline and the hierarchical integrity of the Indian judicial system. Lower courts, including High Courts, cannot disregard or overrule a decision of the Supreme Court. As held in Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan, a High Court is not permitted to overrule a decision of the Apex Court, even if it believes certain points were not considered.[10]

Furthermore, the principle of binding precedent extends within the Supreme Court itself. Decisions of larger benches are binding on smaller benches. In Central Board Of Dawoodi Bohra Community And Another v. State Of Maharashtra And Another, it was affirmed that a bench of lesser strength cannot dissent from or overrule a decision of a larger bench; if it has doubts, the proper course is to refer the matter to a larger bench through the Chief Justice.[11] This principle was also underscored in Union Of India And Another v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) By Lrs. Etc.[12] and Pradip Chandra Parija And Others v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik And Others.[13] The practical application of Article 141 was seen in Maj. Genl. A.S Gauraya And Another v. S.N Thakur And Another, where a subsequent Supreme Court ruling effectively settled the law on a disputed point, which then became binding on all lower courts.[14]

Article 141 vis-à-vis Article 142: Declaration of Law versus Complete Justice

It is important to distinguish between the "law declared" under Article 141 and directions issued by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers the Court to pass such decrees or make such orders as are necessary for doing "complete justice" in any cause or matter pending before it.

The Supreme Court in State Of Punjab And Others v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) clarified this distinction:

"‘Declaration of Law’ as contemplated in Article 141 of the Constitution: is the speech express or necessarily implied by the Highest Court of the land... directions issued under Article 142 do not constitute a binding precedent unlike Article 141 of the Constitution of India. They are direction issued to do proper justice and exercise of such power, cannot be considered as law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141... The directions of the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, while moulding the relief, that relax the application of law or exempt the case in hand from the rigour of the law in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances do not comprise the ratio decidendi and therefore lose its basic premise of making it a binding precedent."[15]

This differentiation was reiterated by the Kerala High Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ambika Kumari K.[16] and by the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA v. RAJEEV BANSAL, which noted that every Supreme Court judgment has two components: the law declared (Article 141) and the doing of complete justice (Article 142).[17]

Evolution of Precedent: Overruling and Prospective Application

While Article 141 establishes the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions, the law is not static. The Supreme Court itself possesses the power to reconsider and overrule its previous decisions if it deems them erroneous or no longer reflective of societal needs or constitutional principles. In Union Of India And Another v. Raghubir Singh, Pathak C.J., speaking for the Court, acknowledged the dynamic nature of law and the judiciary's role in its evolution, emphasizing the responsibility that rests on the Supreme Court whose declarations under Article 141 are binding.[12] This sentiment was echoed in Raman Gopi & Anr. v. Kunju Raman Uthaman, which quoted these observations.[18]

An early instance of the Supreme Court overruling its own precedent can be seen in Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. State Of Bihar And Others, where the Court overruled its prior decision in State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd. (1953) SCR 1069 on the interpretation of Article 286 of the Constitution.[19] This power to overrule ensures that the law can adapt to changing circumstances and correct past errors, although it is exercised with caution to maintain legal stability.

Conclusion

Article 141 of the Constitution of India is a linchpin of the Indian legal order, ensuring that the law as declared by the Supreme Court serves as a uniform and binding standard across the entire territory of India. It underpins the doctrine of stare decisis, promoting certainty, predictability, and consistency in judicial decision-making. By clearly defining what constitutes "law declared," distinguishing it from obiter dicta and directions under Article 142, and establishing hierarchical judicial discipline, Article 141 fortifies the rule of law. While allowing for the evolution of law through the Supreme Court's power to reconsider its own precedents, Article 141 remains pivotal in maintaining a coherent, authoritative, and respected system of justice in India.

References

  1. MR NEERAJ VERMA S/O LATE MR. G K VERMA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (Karnataka High Court, 2020).
  2. Director Of Settlements, A.P And Others v. M.R Apparao And Another (2002 SCC 4 638, Supreme Court Of India, 2002).
  3. Dhirju Ram v. Sham Singh (Himachal Pradesh High Court, 2017).
  4. Chandrapal Singh v. State Of U.P. And Another (Allahabad High Court, 2023).
  5. S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State Of T.N And Another (2002 SCC 8 361, Supreme Court Of India, 2002).
  6. State Of Manipur v. Thingujam Brojen Meetei . (1996 SCC 9 29, Supreme Court Of India, 1996).
  7. M/s Gilco Exports Ltd., Chandigarh v. ACIT, C-2(1), Chandigarh (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2019).
  8. Km. Ruby Mausoof v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary (Ministry Of Home Affairs), U.P. At Lucknow And Others (Allahabad High Court, 2016).
  9. Commissioner Of Central Excise, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries . (2008 SCC 13 1, Supreme Court Of India, 2008).
  10. Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan . (2002 SCC 2 420, Supreme Court Of India, 2002).
  11. Central Board Of Dawoodi Bohra Community And Another v. State Of Maharashtra And Another (2005 SCC 2 673, Supreme Court Of India, 2004).
  12. Union Of India And Another v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) By Lrs. Etc. (1989 SCC 2 754, Supreme Court Of India, 1989).
  13. Pradip Chandra Parija And Others v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik And Others (2002 SCC 1 1, Supreme Court Of India, 2001).
  14. Maj. Genl. A.S Gauraya And Another v. S.N Thakur And Another (1986 SCC 2 709, Supreme Court Of India, 1986).
  15. State Of Punjab And Others v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) . (2014 SCC 8 883, Supreme Court Of India, 2014); See also State Of Punjab & Ors v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (Supreme Court Of India, 2014, as per text provided).
  16. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep By Its Legal Claims Managerreliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Ernakulam /S v. Ambika Kumari K. And Others /S. (Kerala High Court, 2020).
  17. UNION OF INDIA v. RAJEEV BANSAL (Supreme Court Of India, 2024).
  18. Raman Gopi & Anr. v. Kunju Raman Uthaman (Kerala High Court, 2011).
  19. Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. State Of Bihar And Others (1955 AIR SC 661, Supreme Court Of India, 1955).