A Supreme Court decision entirely based on technical grounds cannot be used as a binding precedent or declaration of law on a particular issue, a three-judge Bench of the apex court has said.
The March 5 judgment by a Bench led by Justice R. Banumathi found that various high courts were banking on a 2011 decision of the apex court to dismiss a case solely on the ground of delay in filing it.
Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts. The court’s pronouncement of the law on a point shall operate as a binding precedent.
In the judgment Union of India versus M.V. Mohanan Nair pronounced on March 5, Justice Banumathi said for an apex court judgment to be classified as a declaration of law under Article 141, the verdict should first lay down a principle of law. To lay down such a principle of law, the court must have applied its mind to the merits of the case. A summary dismissal of a case on a technical ground like delay in filing does not make a decision a binding precedent.
“A decision unaccompanied by reasons can never be said to be a law declared by the Supreme Court,” Justice Banumathi observed.
The Mohanan Nair case concerned a challenge to the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme on the basis of a 2011 decision of the apex court in the Raj Pal case. Justice Banumathi held that the Raj Pal judgment cannot be used as a binding precedent because the apex court had dismissed the case only on the ground of delay.
The MACP scheme, which superseded the ACP Scheme, was introduced in 1999 to deal with the problem of “genuine stagnation and hardship faced by the employees due to lack of adequate promotional avenues.” The court upheld the MACP scheme as a matter of government policy.
“Interference with the recommendations of the expert body like Pay Commission and its recommendations for the MACP would have a serious impact on the public exchequer,” the apex court concluded.
.png?w=600)
