State High Courts are constitutionally bound to follow Supreme Court Constitutional Bench precedents without deviation, and any departure amounts to judicial indiscipline.
Aaj ka motion yeh hai: 'State High Courts Must Mandatorily Follow Supreme Court Constitutional Bench Precedents' — yani kya Maharashtra jaise State High Courts ke liye yeh ek pakki, mandatory zimmedari hai ki woh Supreme Court ke Constitutional Bench ke faislon ko bina kisi vikalp ke follow karen. Is important sawaal par, main Counsel Aarav se request karungi ki woh apna paksh rakhna shuru karen.
My Lord, main yeh stithi seedhi rakhta hoon — Article 141 ek absolute mandate hai, koi suggestion nahi: Supreme Court dwara declared law 'all courts within India' par binding hai, aur is 'all courts' mein Maharashtra ka High Court bhi aata hai, bina kisi exception ke. Jab ek Constitutional Bench ek principle settle karti hai, to Bombay High Court ya koi bhi State High Court us precedent ko 'optional' nahi maan sakta — warna judicial hierarchy ka poora structure bekar ho jaata hai. Isliye is Motion ka Paksh bilkul sahi hai — mandatory compliance ek constitutional zaroorat hai, na ki ek vikalp.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 141
My lord, main is motion ka poora vipaksh karti hoon — kyunki Article 141 ka sahi paath yeh hai ki Supreme Court ka law 'all courts' par binding hai, lekin iska matlab yeh nahi ki High Courts ki apni constitutional identity aur Article 226 ke tahat unka wider jurisdiction khatam ho jaata hai. Paksh yeh bhool jaata hai ki High Court ek coordinate constitutional institution hai, aur uski 'any other purpose' ki shakti — jo Article 32 se bhi zyada vast hai — ek alag aur deliberate constitutional design ka hissa hai, jo rigid mechanical compliance se bahut aage jaati hai.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 141; Constitution of India · Article 226
My lord, vipaksh yeh kehna chahta hai ki High Courts ko kuch flexibility milni chahiye — lekin yeh dalil Article 141 ki spashtata ke saamne tik nahi paati: 'the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on ALL courts within the territory of India' — yahan koi exception nahi, koi discretion nahi. Agar ek State High Court, kisi bhi aadhaar par, Supreme Court ke Constitutional Bench ke precedent se hat sakti hai, to judicial uniformity ka poora dhaancha bikhar jaata hai aur ek hi desh mein do alag 'laws' chalenge — jo Constitution ki aatma ke khilaf hai. Isliye, my lord, mandatory compliance sirf logical nahi, balki constitutionally OBLIGATORY hai.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 141
My Lord, paksh ne Article 141 ko ek aisa patthar bana diya jaise High Courts sirf ek copy-paste machine hain — lekin main kehna chahti hoon ki Article 226 ke under High Courts ko 'any other purpose' ke liye writ ka adhikar hai, jo Article 32 se bhi wider hai; yeh constitutional design hi kehta hai ki High Courts sirf blind follower nahi, balki independent constitutional courts hain. Aur agar hum mandatory compliance ka itna rigid framework thop dein, to Article 39A ki 'equal justice' ki bhavna bhi khatam ho jaati hai — kyunki har State ki local, social, aur economic paristhitiyaan alag hoti hain, aur High Court unhe samajhkar nyaya deti hai, Supreme Court ka ek formula sab par fit nahi hota. Isliye vipaksh ka stand clear hai: Article 141 binding precedent ka respect karta hai, lekin 'mandatory' aur 'rigid' enforcement High Courts ki constitutional autonomy ko crush karti hai.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 226; Constitution of India · Article 141; Constitution of India · Article 39A
Pehli taraf ka kehna hai ki Article 141 ke tahat Supreme Court ke Constitutional Bench ke precedents sabhi courts par binding hain, isliye High Courts ka mandatorily follow karna zaroori hai — yeh rule of law ki buniyad hai. Doosri taraf ka kehna hai ki Article 226 High Courts ko ek swatantra aur wider jurisdiction deta hai, aur 'mandatory' ka shabd unki judicial discretion ko khatam kar sakta hai jo nyaya ke liye kabhi kabhi zaroori hoti hai. Meri balanced legal suggestion yeh hogi: High Courts ko Constitutional Bench precedents ko binding manna chahiye jab constitutional questions involve hon — Article 141 ispar clear hai — lekin Article 226 ki wider powers ka upyog karte waqt unhe yeh explain karna chahiye ki precedent distinguish kyun kiya, taaki accountability bhi rahe aur judicial flexibility bhi. Ab main citizens se request karungi ki is debate ko rate karen aur apni raay zaahir karen.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 141; Constitution of India · Article 226