The learned single Judge of Karnataka High Court in a Writ Petition passed an order stating that earlier judgement of a Division Bench of the High Court requires reconsideration and in the absence of any statutory provision empowering him to refer the same to the larger Bench the relevant papers be placed before Chief Justice to examine the question and constitute a larger Bench.
The Hon’ble Court observed that according to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. The expression “all courts” means Courts other than the Supreme Court. The decision of the Supreme Court is binding on all the High Courts. In other words, the High Court’s cannot hold the law laid down by the Apex Court is not binding on the ground that relevant provisions were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court, or the Supreme Court laid down the legal position without considering all the points. The decision of the Apex Court binds as much the pending cases as the future ones. Even the directions issued by the Apex Court in a decision constitute binding law under Article 141. It is pertinent to state that the Supreme Court is not bound by its own decisions and may overrule its previous decisions. It is also pertinent to state that the Apex Court may overrule the previous decisions either by expressly saying so or impliedly by not following them in a subsequent case. Thus, in view of Article 141 of Constitution of India, when there is a decision of the Apex Court directly applicable on all fours to the case on hand, the Learned Single Judge could have decided the Writ Petitions following the decision of the Apex Court, holding that the decision of the Division Bench is contrary to the law laid down under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the learned single Judge could decide the petitions in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court.