Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. The learned counsel for the Plaintiffs then assailed the correctness of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Krishna Laxman Yadav's case (supra) and urged that the said judgment was not binding and the observations made in the said judgment were per incuriam and suffer from vice of sub-silentio decision. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Municipal Corporation of Delhi, v. Gurnam Kaur, ; (ii) State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., .

25. Dealing with the binding nature of the decisions of the Supreme Court with reference to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur's case (supra) observed that obiter dicta, per incuriam and sub-silentio decisions and orders have no binding force and so are the orders made with the consent of the parties and with the reservations that the same should not be treated as precedent. Reiterating the same legal position, the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.'s, case (supra) proceeded to further lay down that the per incuriam and sub-silentio judgments and orders are exceptions to rule of precedent and such decisions which are not express nor founded on reasons nor proceeding on consideration of the issue can be deemed as law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Doctrine of precedent has been well explained by the Apex Court time and again and in para Nos. 40 and 41 of the State of U.P. (supra), the Apex Court observed that -

41. Does this principle extend and apply to a conclusion of law, which was neither raised nor preceded by any consideration. In other words, can such conclusions be considered as declaration of law? Here again the English Courts and jurists have carved out an exception to the rule of precedents. It has been explained as rule of sub-silentio. "A decision passes sub-silentio, in the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when the particular point-of-law involved in the decision is not perceived by the Court or present to its mind". (Salmond on Jurisprudence 12th Edn., p. 153). In Lancaster Motor Company (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd. the Court did not feel bound by earlier decision as it was rendered 'without any argument, without reference to the crucial words of the rule and without any citation of the authority'. Tt was approved by this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur . The bench held that, 'precedents sub-silentio and without argument are of no moment'. The Courts thus have taken recourse to this principle for relieving from injustice perpetrated by unjust precedents. A decision which is not express and is not founded on reasons nor it proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. Uniformity and consistency are core of judicial discipline. But that which escapes in the judgment without any occasion Is not ratio decidendi. In B. Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondichery it was observed, 'it is trite regard to its ratio and the priciples, laid down there in'. Any declaration or conclusion arrived at without application of mind or preceded without any reason cannot he deemed to be declaration of law or authority of a general nalure binding as a precedent. Restraint in dissenting or overruling is for sake of stability and uniformity but rigidity beyond reasonable limits is inimical to the growth of law." -