In the event of a conflict of authority between a judgment of the Full Bench of a High Court (consisting of three or less of the Hon’ble Judges) and a Judgment of Division Bench of the Supreme Court (consisting of three or less of the Hon’ble Judges) which of the above two judgments would have the binding effect in proceedings before a subordinate court in the state of Rajasthan?

Question: In the event of a conflict of authority between a judgment of the Full Bench of a High Court (consisting of three or less of the Hon’ble Judges) and a Judgment of Division Bench of the Supreme Court (consisting of three or less of the Hon’ble Judges) which of the above two judgments would have the binding effect in proceedings before a subordinate court in the state of Rajasthan? [RJS 1980-81]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [In the event of a conflict of authority between a judgment of the Full Bench of a High Court (consisting of three or less of the Hon’ble Judges) and a Judgment of Division Bench of the Supreme Court (consisting of three or less of the Hon’ble Judges) which of the above two judgments would have the binding effect in proceedings before a subordinate court in the state of Rajasthan?]

Answer

Article 141 of the Indian Constitution of India commands that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all the courts within the territory of India. Judges of all other courts are thus bound to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court irrespective of their own views on legal matters. The Supreme Court has thus been assigned the role of legal mentor of the nation. Law will be bereft of its utility if it is thrown into a state of uncertainly by reason of conflicting decisions.
In order to ensure a state of certainty and uniformity, the framers of the Constitution had inserted in the Constitution. Similarly, the subordinate courts are bound by the decisions of the High Court under which they are working whereas the dicta of the other High Courts have a high persuasive value for them.

Where the decision of the Supreme Court, even though by smaller Bench, has analyzed and explained the observations of an earlier larger Bench, then the law as declared by and explained in the SC is binding upon the HC as observed by a Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in M/s Subhash Chander Kamlesh Kumari v. State of Punjab (AIR 1990 Punjab and Haryana 259). It was ruled in this case that no exception can be taken to this erudite opinion rendered by the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana as when the Judges of the Final Court itself explain the dictum laid down by the earlier larger Bench than such an explanation must hold the field in the courts subordinate to the Supreme Court.

Thus, in the present case, since there is a conflict between a judgment given by the full bench of an HC and a judgment given by the Division bench of the SC, the latter shall prevail in accordance with the constitutional status guaranteed to the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. Therefore, the judgment of SC will have a binding effect in proceedings before a subordinate court in the state of Rajasthan.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-I
3. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-II
4. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-X