LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

advchennai (Advocate)     29 August 2009

whether supreme judgements are laws of land?

 Whether supreme judgements are laws of land?


 11 Replies

Sivadas Chettur (Chartered accountant)     29 August 2009

According to Art 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Supreme court shall be binding on all courts in India. Art 142 also grants the court with the power to do complete justice and enforce its orders/ decree throughout the territories of India. The Supreme court is supreme because it is infallible and it is infallible because it is supreme.Right?

sivadas chettoor

M.S.Sayyed (Research)     30 August 2009

Both these articles are based upon the assumption that the Supreme Court is bound to do justice in true sense. It may however must be remembered that the judge /s writing the judgements are human being after all and they can interprete to their understanding which may not be always perfect. Had it not been so then there would not have the existance of these big volumes of law reporters.Therefore the judgement which passes the test of nearness to the statement of objects and reasons can be termed as law of the land.

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     30 August 2009

 Infallible? A human being can be infallible is a surprising development.

Infallible is an adjective and the literal meaning of the word is 

incapable of error; incapable of making a mistake; incapable of failure, or not liable to fail; inevitable.

Please read this:

175 years later, West Bengal case goes on and on

The wheels of Indian justice grind slowly, but there are times when they don't move at all — as has happened with the record-breaking case of an erstwhile Bengali royal family's proverty...

Read this also:

Justice Markandey Katju of the Supreme Court rejected the teacher Banibrata Ghosh's plea last week and said: 'The counsel for the teacher says we should take a compassionate view of the matter since as a result of this judgement he would be thrown in the state of unemployment. We are afraid we cannot show any such misplaced sympathy.'

Ghosh, a resident of Krishnanagar in West Bengal's Nadia district, got a temporary job for six months in January 1991 as a bio-science teacher in Shimulia High School against a leave vacancy.

His appointment in the government-run school was repeatedly extended with due approval by the state authorities till June 1992, when the teacher in whose place he was appointed resigned, giving rise to a permanent vacancy.

Ghosh then requested the school authorities that he be considered for appointment against the permanent vacancy in view of his one-and-a-half years of service.

Finding the authorities a trifle reluctant, he moved the Calcutta High Court in August 1992 seeking his appointment in the school. Ghosh's plea first came up for hearing on Dec 15, 1992.

After a preliminary hearing of the matter, a single judge bench, through its interim and temporary ruling, ordered the state government to appoint Ghosh.

The government eventually appointed Ghosh after some delay and over time apparently forgot his lawsuit.

But 10 years later, Ghosh's lawsuit eventually came up for hearing and another single-judge bench of the court scrapped his appointment, saying that his predecessor had made the appointment only temporarily and wrongly.

A division bench of the high court, however, set aside the single-judge bench order that scrapped Ghosh's appointment and ordered the government to reinstate him.

The state government approached the Supreme Court and finally won the case against the hapless teacher last week, securing the apex court's approval to show him the door once again. Ghosh had been teaching in the school for all these 18 years, his lawyer said.

The apex court, however, said it was not averse to some rules being bent so that Ghosh could become eligible for fresh employment.

'Considering that Ghosh's writ remained pending for 10 years and thereby he might now have become barred by age for fresh employment, we recommend that the government may consider condoning the age bar for Ghosh's fresh appointment,' Katju said.

The court's recommendation is not binding on the government.

The buzz word is: Keep Quiet.

Adinath@Avinash Patil (advocate)     30 August 2009

I agree with Anil Agrawal

B.N.Rajamohamed (advocate / commissioner of oaths)     06 September 2009

The judgements of the supreme court of india are having the status as prcedents. It has the binding effect on all the courts in India in view of Article 141 of the constitution of India. Hence, they are the laws of land there is no doubt in it.



Anil Agrawal (Retired)     06 September 2009

Supreme Court has no power to lay down the law. It cannot usurp the power of the legislatures. It interprets law but sometimes goes beyond and interprets the intention of the legislature. It is bound by the Constitution and cannot go against it.

Hemant Agarwal ( Mumbai : 9820174108)     06 September 2009

I've never really been inside the Supreme Court  or to the Parliament.


a)  If the Parliament enacts a Law (say R.T.I.Act).
b)  The CJI says RTI not applicable to CJI.
c)  CJI appeals in Delhi HC and loses.
HERE what law is applicable to whom.  The SC CJI, himself says that RTI not applicable to him and his sub-ordinate HC judge, orders that RTI is applicable to SC CJI.


FUNNY, my uncle says "the law is an ass".  I've no reason not to believe him.


If a group of judges can interpret the law (as per their own judgements), and those judicial  interpretations is supposed to become law,  THEN in all probabilites, we need not have parliament  and elected representatives to concieve and compose laws.    IN OTHER WORDS, THE CONCIEVING AND COMPOSING OF LAWS CAN BE GIVEN TO A GROUP OF SELECTED JUDGES. And another Judges group as usual takes up "interpreting those laws".  AND then the judicially "interpreted laws" becomes the actual laws under Article 141.


AND, funnily enough, another SC bench, interprets the earlier "interpreted laws", into a totally different "interpretation"  and that freshly interpreted law, becomes the actual law under Article 141 ... AND THE CYCLING AND RE-CYCLING CONTINUES, UNABATED.


10 different judges or benches, will give 10 different "judicial interpretations" for issues u/s 138 and in the game process, the exact parliamentary wordings of law (section) goes down the legal drain.


What law the sub-ordinate judges will follow ... the law enacted by the parliament or the law as interepreted by the SC judges or the law interpreted by another SC bench or the law interpreted by YET another SC bench.


anyway, till you can ...
Keep Smiling .... Hemant


M.S.Sayyed (Research)     07 September 2009

Article 141 reads as : The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all the courts   within the territory of India.

There are number of judgements of the Supreme Court which declared that " The words ' all courts ' do not include the Supreme Court, so that the Supreme Court is not bound by its own decisions........ " Bengal Immunity Co. versus State of Bihar (1955) 2 S.C.R. 603.

In the case of Supreme Court Advocates vs Union of India [ (1993) 4 S.C.C. 441 ] ,  the Supreme Court observed that ' is is wiser to be ultimately right than to be consistently wrong '

Therefore the Supreme Court can not be said to be infallible.


Anil Agrawal (Retired)     07 September 2009

 Goespel's truth and decisions of SC are one and the same except that the former remains constant whereas the latter waits for "ultimate right".

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     16 December 2009

Hemant, that was great interpretation of Laws of Quandry.

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     16 December 2009

read as quandary!

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register