Umabai v. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan, (2005) 6 SCC 243 and Tulsi v. Chandrika Prasad, (2006) 8 SCC 322 were not brought to notice of this Court in Vanchalabai Raghunath Ithape v. Shankarrao Baburao Bhilare, (2013) 7 SCC 173. In absence of consideration, we find Vanchalabai Raghunath Ithape will not lay down a binding precedent.

– Hon’ble Justice Hemant Gupta, Bhimrao Ramchandra Khalate v. Nana Dinkar Yadav, [Civil Appeal No. 10197 of 2010] decided on 13.08.2021.

_____

Every new discovery or argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent.

– Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. Bishal Jaiswal, 2021 (3) BLJ 373.

A binding precedent is of utmost importance in administration of our judicial system. It promotes certainty and consistency in judicial decisions. There is this need for consistency in enunciation of legal principles in decisions of this Court.

– Five-Judge Bench, Chandra Prakash v. State of U.P., AIR 2002 SC 1652.

_____

“It is also clarified, those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions run counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.”

– Constitution Bench, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1.

Mere over-ruling of principles will not have effect of uprooting or diluting binding effect of final adjudication between parties and set it at naught. The decision in question itself has to be assailed and got rid of in a manner known to or recognized by law. 

– Hon’ble Justice Krishna Murari, Neelima Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [Civil Appeal No. 4840 of 2021] decided on 17.08.2021.

_____

Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao, (2002) 4 SCC 638 held, “An ‘obiter dictum’ as distinguished from a ‘ratio decidendi’ is an observation by Court on a legal question suggested in a case before it but not arising in such manner as to require a decision. Even though an ‘obiter’ may not have a binding effect as a precedent, but it cannot be denied it is of considerable weight.”

– Hon’ble Justice Hemant Gupta, State of Telangana v. A.P. State Wakf Board, [Civil Appeal No. 10770 of 2016] decided on 07.02.2022.

_____

Court has reiterated, in limine dismissal of a Special Leave Petition without giving any detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent under Article 141. See, State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770.

– Hon’ble Justice N.K. Singh, B.N. John v. State of U.P., [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2184 of 2024] decided on 02.01.2025.

_____

It is important to note, as an institution, our Supreme Court performs twin functions of decision-making and precedent-making. It is necessary to be cautious in our dispensation and state whether a particular decision is to resolve a dispute between parties or whether it is intended to declare law under Article 141.

Court has enumerated “events when decision-making is not to be treated as a precedent” [Durga Das Basu, ‘Commentary on Constitution of India’, 9th Edition, Vol. IX].

– Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, NBCC (India) v. State of West Bengal, [Civil Appeal No. 3705 of 2024] decided on 10.01.2025.

_____

“It would, therefore, be not profitable to extract a sentence here and there… because essence of a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein” [Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi, (1996) 6 SCC 44]. Dhanwanti Devi cautioned, it is neither profitable nor permissible to rely upon isolated lines…

– Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath, Vineeta Srinandan v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay, [Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025] decided on 10.12.2025.