Page 49 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] CURATIVE JURISDICTION OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT A65

In this context, in respect of binding nature of precedent, it was
observed :
“24. There is no gainsaying that the Supreme Court is the Court of last re-
sort the final Court on questions both of fact and of law including constitu-
tional law. The law declared by this Court is the law of the land; it is prece-
dent for itself and for all the Courts/Tribunals and authorities in India. In a
judgment there will be declaration of law and its application to the facts of
the case to render a decision on the dispute between the parties to the lis. It is
necessary to bear in mind that the principles in regard to the highest Court
departing from its binding precedent are different from the grounds on
which a final judgment between the parties, can be reconsidered. Here, we
are mainly concerned with the latter. However, when reconsideration of a
judgment of this Court is sought the finality attached both to the law declared
as well as to the decision made in the case, is normally brought under chal-
lenge. It is, therefore, relevant to note that so much was the value attached to
the precedent of the highest Court that in the London Street Tramways Compa-
ny, Limited v. London County Council (LR 1898 AC 375), the House of Lords
laid down that its decision upon a question of law was conclusive and would
bind the House in subsequent cases and that an erroneous decision could be
set right only by an Act of Parliament.”
After referring several decisions relating to the conclusive nature of the
precedent in paras 25 to 31 of the above decision, Hon’ble Court considered the
extent of binding under the principle of stare decisis, necessity of Justice prevail-
ing over the principle of finality of its judgment, scope of the curative nature of
power conferred on the Supreme Court under Art. 142 and laid down step re-
garding specifying the requirements to entertain such a curative petition under
the inherent power of this Court and it was observed that when Hon’ble Court
overrules the view of law expressed by it in an earlier case, it does not do so sit-
ting in appeal and exercising an appellate jurisdiction over the earlier decision, it
does so in exercise of its inherent power and only in exceptional circumstances
such as when the earlier decision is per incuriam or is delivered in the absence of
relevant or material facts or if it is manifestly wrong and productive of public
mischief :
“32. To what extent the principle of stare decisis binds this Court, was con-
sidered in the case of Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. (supra). The question before a Con-
stitution Bench of seven learned Judges of this Court was : to what extent the
principle of stare decisis could be pressed into service where the power of this
Court to overrule its earlier decisions was invoked. The Court expressed its
view thus :
“When this Court decides questions of law, its decisions are, under
Art. 141, binding on all Courts within the territory of India, and so,
it must be the constant endeavour and concern of this Court to in-
troduce and maintain an element of certainty and continuity in the
interpretation of law in the country. Frequent exercise by this Court
of its power to review its earlier decisions on the ground that the
view pressed before it later appears to the Court to be more reason-
able, may incidentally tend to make law uncertain and introduce
confusion which must be consistently avoided. That is not to say
that if on a subsequent occasion, the Court is satisfied that its earlier
decision was clearly erroneous, it should hesitate to correct the er-
ror; but before a previous decision is pronounced to be plainly er-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  65