NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has highlighted the challenges faced by high courts and subordinate courts in discerning whether its judgments serve as precedents or are part of the decision-making process. The court emphasized the necessity of explicitly stating the intent behind a judgment when delivering a verdict.
A bench comprising Justices P. S. Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal observed, “As an institution, the Supreme Court performs dual functions: decision-making and precedent-setting. A significant portion of our jurisdiction under Article 136 reflects the routine appellate function of decision-making.”
The bench further explained, “Not every judgment or order issued by this court in the course of appeals is intended to serve as a binding precedent under Article 141. While disputes reach this court for either decision-making or precedent-setting, every judgment or order issued ultimately becomes a binding precedent for high courts and subordinate courts.”
Acknowledging the difficulties lower courts face, the bench noted, “We recognize the challenges high courts and subordinate courts encounter in determining whether a judgment belongs to the realm of decision-making or precedent-setting. This is particularly complex given our stance that even obiter dicta from this court should be treated as binding precedent for lower courts.”
The court emphasized that it strives to clarify instances where its decisions should not be regarded as precedents, thereby aiding the judicial process at all levels.
