It looks like a sacrilege to say the Supreme Court ruling is not a precedent. But the law is that in some circumstances, and it is the Supreme Court which says so.
The Supreme Court judgment is supposed to constitute the law under Article 141 of the Constitution. But it is not free from controversy because of several situations under which judgments are delivered.
One of the circumstances is when a special leave petition is filed on a issue and the court dismisses it in liminie. It means without considering the merit of the case either because of the time bar or some other reason.
More From This Section
In its judgment in the Collector of Customs Bombay vs Elephanta Oil Industries case (2003,vol 152. 257 SC) on January 31, 2003, the apex court held that in cases where special leave petition had been dismissed without assigning any reason, the judgment did not constitute a binding precedent. The same was held by the Supreme Court in the Rath vs State of Orissa case (1999 Supp 4 SCR 302).
In some cases, the Supr-eme Court merely gives some concessions on the facts of the case and says specifically that the judgment is not to be treated as a precedent.
Question arises in such circumstances if the judgment can be treated as a precedent. The Bombay High Court in the D Navinchandra vs Union of India case (1989 (43) ELT 266 Bombay) held that if the facts were the same the order of the Supreme Court was a precedent.
It is a peculiar situation, where it becomes a precedent even if the Supreme Court calls it as