Markio Tado vs. Takam Sorang, Civil Appeal No. 8260 of 2012, Decided on May 10, 2013
In
this respect the Hon’ble SC noted the followings:
The judge clearly ignored
that the law declared by this Court is binding on all courts within the
territory of India under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, and judicial
discipline required him to follow the mandate of the Constitution. [Para
25]
“Before we conclude, we
may state that it is unfortunate that such acts of judicial impropriety are
repeated inspite of clear judgments of this court on the significance of
Article 141 of the Constitution. [Para 27]
The Court
noted following case laws:
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering
Works (P) Ltd. and Anr., reported in (1997) 6 SCC 450, this court observed,
“32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of
judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety
to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to
ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly
contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial adventurism cannot be
permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in
not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders, which
necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful and unwarranted relief to one
of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops.
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Shivanand Pathak and Ors.,
reported in (1998) 5 SCC 513, wherein this court observed,
“If a judgment is overruled by the higher court, the judicial
discipline requires that the judge whose judgment is overruled must submit to
the judgment. He cannot, in the same proceedings or in collateral proceedings
between the same parties, rewrite the overruled judgment…”
To see full text follow the link: