Articles on 13 August 2025

Article 141 of Indian Constitution provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. This provision ensures uniformity in legal interpretation and affirms the authority of the Supreme Court as the apex judicial body. It promotes consistency in the application of laws across the country and is closely linked to the Court’s power of judicial review, reinforcing its position as the final interpreter of the Constitution.

Article 141 of Indian Constitution

The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.

Article 141 of Indian Constitution Interpretation

Article 141 of Indian Constitution establishes the principle of judicial precedent within the Indian legal framework. It provides that “the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India,thereby ensuring consistency and uniformity in the interpretation and application of laws across the nation.

Binding Authority of Supreme Court Judgments

The primary purpose of Article 141 of Indian Constitution is to affirm the Supreme Court’s position as the apex judicial authority in India. By mandating that its pronouncements are binding on all subordinate courts, it reinforces the doctrine of precedent and the hierarchical structure of the judiciary. Consequently, lower courts are bound to follow the legal interpretations and principles laid down by the Supreme Court, ensuring coherence in judicial decision-making throughout the country.

Doctrine of Stare Decisis

The Doctrine of Stare Decisis in India finds its constitutional foundation in Article 141 of the Indian Constitution. The Latin expression stare decisis translates to “to stand by decisions and not to disturb what is settled.” This principle underscores the importance of legal precedents in ensuring stability and predictability in the law. It guides courts to follow established rulings when deciding cases involving similar facts and legal issues, thereby promoting consistency and judicial discipline.

Article 141 of Indian Constitution Scope

Article 141 of Indian Constitution mandates that all courts in the country follow the rulings of the Supreme Court. However, only the ratio decidendi, the core legal reasoning forming the basis of the decision, is binding. Certain well-recognised exceptions limit the binding nature of Supreme Court rulings:

1. Obiter dicta: An obiter dictum (Latin for “something said in passing”) refers to remarks, observations, or opinions expressed by a judge that are not essential to the decision of the case. While such statements are not legally binding, they may hold persuasive value in future cases.

2. Per incuriam: Per incuriam (Latin for “through lack of care”) describes a judgment delivered without due consideration of relevant statutory provisions or binding precedents. Such decisions lack authoritative weight and are not treated as binding law.

3. Sub silentio: Sub silentio (Latin for “under silence”) applies when a legal principle is assumed or applied without the court consciously addressing it. In such cases, the precedent is considered to have been established without deliberate judicial consideration and is not binding.

4. Legislative override: Parliament, as the supreme legislative authority, may override a judicial precedent by enacting new legislation. This can be done explicitly or implicitly, effectively altering or nullifying the legal impact of a Supreme Court decision.

Article 141 of Indian Constitution Significance

By embedding the doctrine of precedent commonly known by its Latin term stare decisis into constitutional law through Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, the legal system promotes stability, uniformity, and predictability. This principle strengthens judicial accountability and safeguards against arbitrary decision-making. It also streamlines legal proceedings by offering consistent interpretative guidelines to subordinate courts, thereby reducing duplication in judicial reasoning for cases involving similar legal issues.

Article 141 of Indian Constitution Challenges

Article 141 of Indian Constitution incorporates a degree of adaptability within the doctrine of precedent. The Supreme Court retains the authority to overrule its earlier decisions, and lower courts may distinguish cases on the basis of factual differences.

While Article 141 and the Doctrine of Stare Decisis both reinforce the authority of judicial precedents, they operate at different levels. Article 141 is a constitutional directive mandating that all courts follow the law declared by the Supreme Court. Stare decisis, by contrast, is a broader common law principle that guides courts at all levels to adhere to established precedents.

1. Binding Scope

Under Article 141, only the ratio decidendi, the core legal reasoning of a Supreme Court judgment, is binding. Obiter dicta and judgments delivered per incuriam do not carry the same authoritative force.

2.  Adaptability

Both Article 141 and stare decisis promote consistency in the legal system while allowing for legal development. The Supreme Court can overturn its own precedents, and courts may distinguish cases where facts or legal standards differ from earlier rulings.

Article 141 of Indian Constitution Cases

Article 141 of Indian Constitution establishes that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within India. Judicial pronouncements have further clarified its scope, operation, and exceptions. Key decisions include:

1. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985): The Supreme Court held that its interpretation of religious scriptures is to be treated as binding precedent under Article 141.

2. State of U.P. v. Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. (1991): The Court ruled that a judgment lacking legal reasoning or substantive analysis of issues does not constitute binding law under Article 141.

3. Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagadeesan (2002): It was reaffirmed that High Courts cannot disregard or overrule Supreme Court decisions on the ground that certain legal points were not discussed.

4. Pandurang Kalu Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2002): The Court clarified that High Court rulings remain binding within their jurisdiction unless expressly overruled by the Supreme Court.

5. Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab (2021): The Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of its binding authority under Article 141. 

6. Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India (2024): The Court held that Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah v. State of Gujarat (2022) was per incuriam as it contradicted larger bench decisions.

7. Islam v. Gopal Dubey (1994): A smaller bench declined to follow a larger bench decision on grounds of per incuriam.

8. Haris v. Jahfar (2020): The Kerala High Court held that Union of India v. Chitra Lekha Chakroborthy was per incuriam and sub silentio for failing to consider Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and relevant provisions of the CPC and Limitation Act.

South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Employee’s Union v. B. Yashoda Bai (2015): The Supreme Court set aside an Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling that had refused to follow a Supreme Court precedent on the ground that certain arguments were not presented. The Court reiterated that High Courts cannot sidestep binding precedents unless they fall within recognized exceptions such as per incuriam.

The Constitution serves as the supreme law of the land, laying down the framework for the governance of the country. It outlines the structure, powers, and responsibilities of various organs of the State. Article 93 of Indian Constitution pertains to the offices of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the House of the People (Lok Sabha), the lower house of the Indian Parliament, and specifies their duties and functions.

Article 93 of Indian Constitution

The House of the People shall, as soon as may be, choose two members of the House to be respectively Speaker and Deputy Speaker thereof and, so often as the office of Speaker or Deputy Speaker becomes vacant, the House shall choose another member to be Speaker or Deputy Speaker, as the case may be.

Article 93 of Indian Constitution Interpretation

Article 93 of Indian Constitution mandates that the Lok Sabha (House of the People) shall elect two of its members to serve as the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, either immediately after its formation or whenever these offices fall vacant. In the event of a vacancy, the House is required to elect a new member to the respective post.

The Speaker presides over the sessions of the Lok Sabha, ensuring that the proceedings are conducted in an orderly and impartial manner. The Deputy Speaker assists the Speaker and assumes their responsibilities in the Speaker’s absence. Both the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker are elected by the members of the Lok Sabha.

Article 167 of Indian Constitution, contained in Part VI, defines the duties of the Chief Minister in ensuring effective communication between the Governor and the Council of Ministers. This provision serves as a key element in the functioning of state governments, facilitating the smooth flow of information and reinforcing the Governor’s constitutional position as the head of the state. By mandating that the Chief Minister keep the Governor informed of decisions, it strengthens transparency, accountability, and administrative coordination in governance.

Article 167 of Indian Constitution

It shall be the duty of the Chief Minister of each State-

(a) to communicate to the Governor of the State all decisions of the Council of Ministers relating to the administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation;

(b) to furnish such information relating to the administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation as the Governor may call for; and

(c) if the Governor so requires, to submit for the consideration of the Council of Ministers any matter on which a decision has been taken by a Minister but which has not been considered by the Council.

Article 167 of Indian Constitution Interpretation

Under Article 167 of Indian Constitution, the Chief Minister is trusted with the duty of keeping the Governor informed of all decisions and proposals made by the Council of Ministers relating to the administration of the state and matters of legislation. The Chief Minister must also furnish the Governor with detailed information on any administrative or legislative matter whenever requested.

Where a decision has been taken by an individual Minister without review by the Council of Ministers, the Governor may direct that the matter be placed before the Council for consideration. This arrangement ensures that the Governor, as the constitutional head of the state, remains fully apprised of executive actions, thereby promoting transparency and accountability in governance.

Article 167 also underscores the Chief Minister’s role as the principal channel of communication between the Governor and the Council of Ministers, facilitating the discharge of the Governor’s constitutional functions and strengthening the coordination between the executive and the state’s constitutional head.

Who is Chief Minister?

• Article 167 of the Indian Constitution is an important provision under Part VI.

• It outlines the duties of the Chief Minister in maintaining communication between the Governor and the Council of Ministers.

• The provision acts as a cornerstone for the operation of state governments.

• It guarantees a smooth flow of information.

• It upholds the constitutional role of the Governor as the head of the state.

• It bolsters the principles of transparency, accountability, and administrative coordination in governance.

• It requires the Chief Minister to inform the Governor of decisions.

Article 50 of Indian Constitution is discussed in Part IV under the Directive Principles of State Policy, directs the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in matters relating to public services. The provision is intended to safeguard judicial independence by ensuring that the functioning of the judiciary remains free from executive influence or control. Although the Directive Principles are not legally enforceable, they serve as guiding principles for governance.

Article 50 of Indian Constitution

The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.

Article 50 of Indian Constitution Interpretation

Article 50 of Indian Constitution plays an important role in safeguarding judicial independence. It affirms that judges must decide cases solely on the basis of law and evidence, free from external influence particularly from the executive branch. By reinforcing the principle of separation of powers, Article 50 ensures that:

• Each branch of government functions within its defined sphere of authority

• The balance of power among the branches is preserved

The provision is specifically concerned with the public services of the State, directing that judicial officers remain distinct from those serving in executive roles. This prevents overlaps that could undermine the impartiality and integrity of judicial decision-making.

Article 50 of Indian Constitution Background

Article 50 of Indian Constitution, mentioned under Part IV, directs the State to ensure a complete separation between the judiciary and the executive in the public services of the State. This provision, part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, has its roots in colonial administrative practices where the two functions were often inter related.

Colonial Era and the Fusion of Functions

After the East India Company was granted Diwani rights in 1765, it evolved from a trading organisation into a governing authority. Civil judicial functions were entrusted to Company Collectors, while criminal cases remained under Muslim officers applying Islamic law. By 1781, however, the Company began centralising criminal justice by granting magisterial powers to its own Collectors, consolidating executive and judicial authority in the same office.

Early Advocacy for Separation: Warren Hastings (1793)

Warren Hastings recognised the risks of overlapping powers and, in 1793, issued a proclamation emphasising that revenue officers should not also hold judicial responsibilities. This marked one of the earliest acknowledgements of the need for an impartial judicial system.

Regression in 1871

Despite earlier reforms, a backward step occurred in 1871 when magisterial powers were transferred from District Judges back to Collectors. This move once again concentrated administrative, prosecutorial, and judicial authority in a single position, eroding judicial independence.

Concerns Raised by the Indian Statutory Commission (1930)

The Government of India, in a memorandum to the Indian Statutory Commission, openly acknowledged the problems created by this overlap. District Magistrates acted not only as administrative heads but also as heads of the police and judicial authority, raising doubts about impartiality in legal proceedings.

Criticism in the Imperial Gazetteer (1907)

The Imperial Gazetteer of India also criticised this arrangement, noting that the merger of judicial and executive powers primarily served colonial convenience and conflicted with the standards of justice recognised in Western democracies.

Codification under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

The Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 formally entrenched the dual role of magistrates, placing them under the direct control of provincial administrations. This codification ensured that the separation of powers remained absent, reinforcing the colonial preference for administrative efficiency over judicial independence.

Article 50 of Indian Constitution Debates and Drafting

Recognising the problem of overlapping functions between the judiciary and the executive, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar introduced Article 39-A (later renumbered as Article 50) in the Constituent Assembly on 24 November 1948. The provision sought to ensure the separation of the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State, thereby safeguarding judicial independence.

The proposal was accepted the following day, 25 November 1948, with certain modifications, including the explicit insertion of the phrase “public services of the State” to broaden its application and ensure its relevance across all levels of governance.

Concerns Raised in the Constituent Assembly

Debates on Article 50 reflected deep anxiety among members about the dangers of executive interference in judicial affairs. Several members stressed that judicial autonomy was essential for maintaining the rule of law in the newly independent nation.

Warning by Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand

Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand, in particular, underscored the urgency of this separation in the post-independence climate. He cautioned that political and bureaucratic influence over the judiciary was on the rise and could erode public trust in the justice system. Drawing from concrete examples, he pointed to:

• Ministerial orders directing the suspension of ongoing criminal proceedings

• Directives for the release of accused legislators

• Malafide police actions targeting political opponents

These incidents, which were strongly criticised by various High Courts, revealed the judiciary’s vulnerability especially at the subordinate level, when the executive retained overlapping powers.

Article 50 of Indian Constitution Significance

Article 50 of Indian Constitution plays a vital role in safeguarding the independence of the judiciary by mandating its separation from the executive. This principle is fundamental to the democratic framework of India.

• Preservation of Judicial Independence: Ensures that judges decide cases free from executive influence, thereby upholding the rule of law and constitutional governance.

• Strengthening Democracy: Reinforces checks and balances by limiting the scope for undue executive control over judicial functions.

• Professional Integrity in Public Services: Prevents the overlap of judicial and executive roles, preserving the credibility and impartiality of both institutions.

• Framework for Judicial Reforms: Serves as a constitutional basis for structural reforms, particularly at the subordinate judiciary level.

• Promotion of Fair Trials and Justice: Enhances public trust by guaranteeing an impartial forum for legal redressal.

Article 50 of Indian Constitution Judicial Pronouncement

Although Article 50 of Indian Constitution is non-justiciable, the judiciary has consistently recognized it as a vital directive for preserving judicial independence by mandating separation from the executive. Over the years, it has informed several landmark judgments concerning the autonomy of both subordinate and higher courts.

• Union of India v. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth (1977): Justice Y.V. Chandrachud emphasized that by incorporating Article 50, the Constituent Assembly gave tangible form to the ideal of an independent judiciary, specifically through its separation from the executive in public services.

• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) - Second Judges Case: Petitioners invoked Article 50 to reinforce the argument for judicial independence. The Supreme Court accepted the relevance of this provision, treating it as an embodiment of the separation of powers principle.

• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2016) - Fourth Judges Case: The Court examined the legislative history of Article 50 and, in Paragraph 331, reasoned that the absence of explicit reference to the independence of the superior judiciary in the Draft Constitution did not diminish its importance. The judgment concluded that the higher judiciary was either inherently independent or must be made so, much like the subordinate judiciary’s separation from the executive.

Gurdial Singh v. State (1957): The challenge to the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 on the basis of Article 50 was rejected. The Court held that Article 50 is directory in nature and not enforceable in a court of law, thereby upholding the Act.