ENFORECEMENT OF ORDERS OF THE SUPREME COURT BY THE

CIVIL COURT.

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

By- Parichaya Reddy,

BBA, LL. B (Hons).

Introduction- A Supreme Court of India is established under Article-124 of the Constitution of

India, with a Chief Justice of India and a maximum of seven other judges until Parliament by law
prescribes otherwise.
In India, A higher court's decision is binding on the lower court and serves as a precedent for the
lower court's judgement, which cannot be changed by the lower court. This concept is known as
Stare decisis, which comes from the Latin phrase "stare decisis et non quieta movere," which
means "to stand by the decisions made." The notion of precedent is what it's known as in India.
Article 141 of the Indian Constitution states that, Laws declared by the Supreme Court are
binding on all courts in India. Generally, the Law declared must be construed as a legal principle
that emerges from a judgment, or interpretation of law or judgment by the Supreme Court, from
which the case is decided. The High Court or a subordinate court must follow the Supreme
Court's decision, when the Court has decided a matter of principle. A judgment by the High
Court that refuses to obey directions or decisions by the Supreme Court, or that attempts to
overturn a decision set aside by the Supreme Court, is null and void.

Background- In India, the Supreme Court declares the law, which is followed by the High
Courts. Supreme Court decisions are only binding if they have not been overturned by the
Supreme
Court. A High Court's rulings are binding on all lower courts within its jurisdiction.
As the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of
India, it is now the responsibility of the High Court to apply this law in accordance with Article
141, and to give reasons to justify its application. The High Court cannot overturn the Supreme
Court's decision on the grounds that the Supreme Court established the legal position without
taking into account any additional considerations. It is not only a question of discipline for
India's High Courts, but it is also a requirement of the Constitution, as stated in Article 141, that
the law issued by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within India's jurisdiction.
When an appeal is filed against a lower court's ruling, it is not for that lower court to advice a
higher court how to determine a case, such a thing would be contrary to judicial discipline, which
is the bedrock upon which the court system is
built and to which finality and orders are connected.

1
Even though the Supreme Court did not address the issue before the High Court, the High Court
cannot dispute the validity of the Supreme Court's judgement.

The Supreme Court's Role: When the Supreme Court, as the country's highest adjudicator
proclaiming the law and given with constitutional qualifications under Article 141, explains a
complex legal issue, it serves as the nation's legal mentor.
There will always be rulings of the ultimate appellate tribunal that do not receive unanimous
agreement from all members of the judiciary in a hierarchical system of courts.
However, the legal system can only function if someone is permitted to have the final say, and
that last word is faithfully accepted once given. According to Article 141 of the Indian
Constitution, the Supreme Court's rulings are binding on all lower courts.
Petition for a special leave
Article 136 of the Constitution of India enables the Supreme Court to give special leave to appeal
against any judgement, decree, determination, sentence, or order passed or made by any court or
tribunal in India. This is referred to as a "special leave petition. "It gives the Supreme Court
unique authority. Articles 132, 133, 134, and 134 A have no bearing on the Supreme Court's
power.

CASE LAWS-

It was held in Union of India vs. Raghubir Singh (AIR 1989 SC 1933) that, "The doctrine of
binding precedent has the benefit of promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions, as
well as allowing for organic development of the law and providing assurance to individuals
about the outcome of transactions that occur on a daily basis.
As a result, there is a requirement for a court's rulings to state legal principles in a clear and
consistent manner."

In South central railway employee's vs Yashodha bhai civil appeal no -(7130 of 2002)
It says that it is not open for the High Court to set aside the order of the Supreme Court as in per
curiam as it is mandatory for the High Court to comply with the order of the supreme court by
not following the order laid down by the supreme court, it would be violating article 141 of the
Indian constitution.
High Court can never set aside or challenge the order passed by the Supreme Court.

2
Anil Kumar Neotia vs union of India (AIR 1998 SCC 1315)- The High Court cannot question
the correctness of the Supreme Court judgment even though the points which sought before the
High Court and not considered by the Supreme court.

The Supreme court stated in Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagadeesan (2002)2 SCC 420 that "It
is unconstitutional for a High Court to overturn an Apex Court decision on the basis that the
Supreme Court established a legal position without considering any other factors. It is
impermissible for the High Court to overrule the judgment of the Supreme Court on the grounds
that the Supreme Court laid the legal position without considering the fact.
Even if the issue before the High Court was whether the Supreme Court's judgement was right,
the High Court cannot dispute it."

The Supreme Court held in Lalu Jela and Others v State of Gujarat (AIR 1962 Gujarat 250) that
"it is difficult to limit the scope of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and to hold that
Article 141 of the Constitution applies only when the Supreme Court makes a declaration of law
that High Court Judges believe is necessary for the determination of the question of law."
It is therefore not permissible for judges of a High Court to criticize a Supreme Court decision on
the basis that they did not apply their minds to the construction of various sections of the section
and so their remarks are just incidental and not obligatory. Of course, there must be a difference
established between a statement of law and simple observations that do not declare the law on
any subject.
However, once the Supreme Court issues a legal statement, it is obligatory on all lower courts.
Obiter, per incuriam, and distinguishable facts principles that may apply to judgments of Courts
of Coordinate Jurisdiction cannot be applied to Supreme Court declarations of law, and such
principles cannot limit the scope of Article 141 of the Constitution. Supreme Court judges are
competent and cautious enough not to make unqualified legal statements that have no general
relevance and solely pertain to the circumstances of the case before them.
It is not available to subordinate Courts to argue that a statement of law issued by the Supreme
Court is not binding, because the case decided by the Supreme Court is distinct from the file
matter before the subordinate Court on facts.
All Supreme Court Subordinate Courts are bound by all Supreme Court pronouncements of law,
even if the circumstances of the case determined by the Supreme Court differ from the facts
before the subordinate Court. If the observations of the Supreme Court amounted to a declaration
of law, it is binding on all subordinate Courts as provided in Article 141 of the Constitution of
India.”

Conclusion-
As the curator and defender of basic rights, the Supreme Court is also endowed with specific

3
authorities that derive directly from the Constitution. By virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution,
the Supreme Court has the ability to proclaim law of the nation.
Article 141 states that any legislation issued by the Supreme Court is obligatory on all courts
within India's jurisdiction.
The declared law must be interpreted as a legal concept arising from a Supreme Court ruling, or
an interpretation of law or judgement, on which the matter is determined.