Dear Kamal,
Alteration of the words of the article by anyone may not change the sense of the article referred to by you. You are requested to reread Article 141 and interpret the same accordingly.
Article 141 states, "Law declared by the Supreme Court to be binding," not that "the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India is binding," as you have stated.
Further, even your post confirms my conviction. Unless any law is declared to be binding by the Supreme Court, that shall not be binding on unreported cases to any court in general, let alone on private organizations presuming it to be binding on them.
Moreover, the said Article 141 stresses upon all other courts (not companies/enterprises) to follow the law of the Supreme Court as binding. So, any law declared to be binding on courts does not authorize private organizations to take any judgment granted to their benefit without any judgment by any court in their own cases. Therefore, unless any such case comes before any court of law, the judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be made automatically applicable at the hands of any organization without the courts going into the merits of the case.
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
Your view that "a judgment in any particular case applies only to that particular case only" cannot be termed as correct.
I would like to bring to your notice that Article 141 of the Indian Constitution clearly states that "the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India is binding upon all courts in the country." Numerous cases all over the country are decided in accordance with the view taken by the Supreme Court.
Article 141 of the Constitution has given the Supreme Court powers to act even as a legislative body as it has the authority to interpret a law passed by the parliament.
The same is applicable for High Court judgments regarding their binding within the jurisdiction of that particular High Court.
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
422Alteration of the words of the article by anyone may not change the sense of the article referred to by you. You are requested to reread Article 141 and interpret the same accordingly.
Article 141 states, "Law declared by the Supreme Court to be binding," not that "the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India is binding," as you have stated.
Further, even your post confirms my conviction. Unless any law is declared to be binding by the Supreme Court, that shall not be binding on unreported cases to any court in general, let alone on private organizations presuming it to be binding on them.
Moreover, the said Article 141 stresses upon all other courts (not companies/enterprises) to follow the law of the Supreme Court as binding. So, any law declared to be binding on courts does not authorize private organizations to take any judgment granted to their benefit without any judgment by any court in their own cases. Therefore, unless any such case comes before any court of law, the judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be made automatically applicable at the hands of any organization without the courts going into the merits of the case.
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
Your view that "a judgment in any particular case applies only to that particular case only" cannot be termed as correct.
I would like to bring to your notice that Article 141 of the Indian Constitution clearly states that "the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India is binding upon all courts in the country." Numerous cases all over the country are decided in accordance with the view taken by the Supreme Court.
Article 141 of the Constitution has given the Supreme Court powers to act even as a legislative body as it has the authority to interpret a law passed by the parliament.
The same is applicable for High Court judgments regarding their binding within the jurisdiction of that particular High Court.
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear all,
After reviewing the judgments of various high courts and the official order issued by EPFO on behalf of the Supreme Court of India, I must express my opinion that the minimum wage should not be split. As far as the judiciary is concerned, a high court cannot overrule a Supreme Court judgment. My view is firm that the minimum wage should never be divided, and contributions should be based on the same.
Thanks and regards,
Sumit Kumar Saxena
9899669071
From India, Ghaziabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
After reviewing the judgments of various high courts and the official order issued by EPFO on behalf of the Supreme Court of India, I must express my opinion that the minimum wage should not be split. As far as the judiciary is concerned, a high court cannot overrule a Supreme Court judgment. My view is firm that the minimum wage should never be divided, and contributions should be based on the same.
Thanks and regards,
Sumit Kumar Saxena
9899669071
From India, Ghaziabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
I agree with you that "alteration of the words of the Article by anyone may not change the sense of Article 141" and would also like to add that the interpretation of Article 141 will remain the same, that the law declared by the Supreme Court is applicable to every person/institution/organization, including those who are not a party to that order/judgment.
I would request you to go through the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Justice S.N. Phukan, and Justice S.N. Variava in 2002, in which the Supreme Court expounded Article 141 and held that "when the Supreme Court decides a principle, it would be the duty of the High Court or a subordinate Court to follow the decision of the Supreme Court, and a judgment of the High Court which refuses to follow the decision and directions of the Supreme Court or seeks to revive a decision of the High Court which had been set aside by the Supreme Court is a nullity."
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agree with you that "alteration of the words of the Article by anyone may not change the sense of Article 141" and would also like to add that the interpretation of Article 141 will remain the same, that the law declared by the Supreme Court is applicable to every person/institution/organization, including those who are not a party to that order/judgment.
I would request you to go through the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Justice S.N. Phukan, and Justice S.N. Variava in 2002, in which the Supreme Court expounded Article 141 and held that "when the Supreme Court decides a principle, it would be the duty of the High Court or a subordinate Court to follow the decision of the Supreme Court, and a judgment of the High Court which refuses to follow the decision and directions of the Supreme Court or seeks to revive a decision of the High Court which had been set aside by the Supreme Court is a nullity."
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Kamal,
Have you read Article 141 of the Constitution? If you have read it, please point out where in Article 141 it states that "the law declared by the Supreme Court is applicable to every person/institution/organization, including those who are not a party to that order/judgement." Also, please clarify if any person/institution/organization is exempted from receiving specific orders in their case without delving into the merits of the case of that organization by the courts.
Furthermore, the judgment from July 2011 discussing the bifurcation of wages pertains to the Punjab & Haryana High Court and does not relate to the Supreme Court.
It would be beneficial if you could attach a copy of the judgment you referred to in your post to enhance my understanding and perspective through that judgment.
Your post seems to imply that you do not distinguish between the terms "Courts" and "individual persons/institutions, etc."
For your information, Section 141 is part of a chapter specifically addressing "THE UNION JUDICIARY." This chapter of the Constitution does not deal with "CITIZENS" or their fundamental rights, trade, commerce, finance, contracts, or services of employees with private organizations.
I would appreciate it if you could cite any provision of law that equates COURTS and INDIVIDUALS/INSTITUTIONS on an equal footing.
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
I agree with you that "alteration of the words of Article by anyone may not change the sense of Article 141" and would also like to add that the interpretation of Article 141 will remain the same, stating that the law declared by the Supreme Court is applicable to every person/institution/organization, including those who are not a party to that order/judgement.
I would like to draw your attention to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Justice S.N. Phukan, and Justice S.N. Variava in 2002, where the Supreme Court expounded on Article 141 and held that "when the Supreme Court decides a principle, it becomes the duty of the High Court or a subordinate Court to follow the decision of the Supreme Court. A judgment of the High Court that refuses to follow the decision and directions of the Supreme Court or seeks to revive a decision of the High Court that had been set aside by the Supreme Court is a nullity."
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Have you read Article 141 of the Constitution? If you have read it, please point out where in Article 141 it states that "the law declared by the Supreme Court is applicable to every person/institution/organization, including those who are not a party to that order/judgement." Also, please clarify if any person/institution/organization is exempted from receiving specific orders in their case without delving into the merits of the case of that organization by the courts.
Furthermore, the judgment from July 2011 discussing the bifurcation of wages pertains to the Punjab & Haryana High Court and does not relate to the Supreme Court.
It would be beneficial if you could attach a copy of the judgment you referred to in your post to enhance my understanding and perspective through that judgment.
Your post seems to imply that you do not distinguish between the terms "Courts" and "individual persons/institutions, etc."
For your information, Section 141 is part of a chapter specifically addressing "THE UNION JUDICIARY." This chapter of the Constitution does not deal with "CITIZENS" or their fundamental rights, trade, commerce, finance, contracts, or services of employees with private organizations.
I would appreciate it if you could cite any provision of law that equates COURTS and INDIVIDUALS/INSTITUTIONS on an equal footing.
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
I agree with you that "alteration of the words of Article by anyone may not change the sense of Article 141" and would also like to add that the interpretation of Article 141 will remain the same, stating that the law declared by the Supreme Court is applicable to every person/institution/organization, including those who are not a party to that order/judgement.
I would like to draw your attention to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Justice S.N. Phukan, and Justice S.N. Variava in 2002, where the Supreme Court expounded on Article 141 and held that "when the Supreme Court decides a principle, it becomes the duty of the High Court or a subordinate Court to follow the decision of the Supreme Court. A judgment of the High Court that refuses to follow the decision and directions of the Supreme Court or seeks to revive a decision of the High Court that had been set aside by the Supreme Court is a nullity."
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
With due respect, I would like to say that I do find a lot of difference between the terms "Courts" and "individual persons/institutions, etc."
However, at the same time, I also know and understand that any court's judgments are pronounced on the appeal of individual persons/groups/institutions, etc., and it is an individual person/group/institution that is affected by the judgment of any court, directly or indirectly.
I am also confident that the court does not accept an appeal from an alien, and court judgments are not pronounced for aliens.
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
With due respect, I would like to say that I do find a lot of difference between the terms "Courts" and "individual persons/institutions, etc."
However, at the same time, I also know and understand that any court's judgments are pronounced on the appeal of individual persons/groups/institutions, etc., and it is an individual person/group/institution that is affected by the judgment of any court, directly or indirectly.
I am also confident that the court does not accept an appeal from an alien, and court judgments are not pronounced for aliens.
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Did I say aliens in any of my posts?
Evidently, with all your irritation, you are going totally off track on your own statement on the pretext of aliens just to evade from your wrong interpretation about Article 141 of the Constitution. However, you do not seem to admit reality about the courts versus the individuals/institutions. I won't have any objection if you start working in your organization or advise your clients on the basis of the P&H judgment delivered in favor of M/s G4S Security Services and see the results yourself. Wish you all the best!
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Evidently, with all your irritation, you are going totally off track on your own statement on the pretext of aliens just to evade from your wrong interpretation about Article 141 of the Constitution. However, you do not seem to admit reality about the courts versus the individuals/institutions. I won't have any objection if you start working in your organization or advise your clients on the basis of the P&H judgment delivered in favor of M/s G4S Security Services and see the results yourself. Wish you all the best!
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear PS Dhingra
I fully support Kamal, on his views on the above topic, please read article 131A,135,141,32,131,132,140,138,139,32A, these articles will help you understand the powers and jurisdiction of Supreme court.
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance.”
Regards
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I fully support Kamal, on his views on the above topic, please read article 131A,135,141,32,131,132,140,138,139,32A, these articles will help you understand the powers and jurisdiction of Supreme court.
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance.”
Regards
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Octavious,
I appreciate your efforts for taking trouble to oppose tooth and nail my contention by quoting even the repealed Articles of the Constitution. Quotation of repealed articles, like 32A, 131A, clearly indicates that you are reading just between the lines, while the Constitution of India clearly indicates the facts of repealment against the Article concerned by clearly referring the relevant Constitution Amendment Acts of 1977 (both). Both the Articles were repealed 33 years back to be effective from 13.04.1978.
I don't have any objection, if you support the wrong opinion of Mr. Kamal, but I wonder a SUPER MODERATOR, like you, prefers to support the wrong views that too by virtue of super old knowledge of more 33+ years and also by misinterpreting the provisions of the existing Constitution of India tending to only mislead the community, rather than showing a right path or solution to the community seeking guidance from us.
Further, you probably forget that the Constitution has been divided in different sections/parts and the chapter of each part discusses matters pertaining only to matters related to that subject by not touching any other aspect. You can very well see that except the Articles 32 and 32A, all the Articles (131A,135,141,131,132,140,138,139) quoted by you discuss only about the "UNION JUDICIARY" to be applicable to ONLY the judiciary and not the public in general or business, etc. This aspect I have already mentioned in my last reply to Shri Kamal's post.
Now coming to Article 32, this relates to "REMEDIES for enforcement of rights" of the individual citizens. Needless to emphasize, remedies on arising of any dispute are sought by some one who is aggrieved, but cannot be assumed unauthorisedly by him. The Article very clearly states about the RIGHT TO MOVE SUPREME COURT BY APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS, not by presuming that the Supreme Court should itself presume about any dispute existing between individual to individual and start automatically moving itself, unless some one files a petition about the nature of dispute with some other party.
Article 32A, relating to Constitutional validity of State Laws, which was only deleted more than 33 years back, but also has nothing to do with the Central relating to EPFO.
I wonder, how as a super moderator you believe that the P&H judgment of July 2011 also has the same value as that of the Supreme Court when you very well know that the EPFO can still file an appeal with the Supreme Court against the orders under the provisions of Article 133 (as avoided quoting in your post) to get that quashed. Moreover, there was no direction of the P&H High Court for the EPFO to implement their judgment to the cases of lakhs of the contributing organisations.
You have also avoided to quote Article 142 of the Constitution along with other Articles in your reply. Probably, you have NOT tried to interpret the same where it clearly states that the Supreme Court has also to make such ORDER and prescribe manner to make any decree or order enforceable under any law made by the parliament and UNTIL provision in that behalf is so made in such manner as the President may by ORDER prescribe.
The Article, thus clearly emphasises on specific order by the Supreme Court for general application that too only up till the President of India makes any specific order and prescribes the manner in that respect. BUT NOT in any individual case to be implemented in general manner merely on presumption basis and without any specific authority issued either by the Supreme Court or the President of India. Here in this case the irony is that the order, itself, does not relate to the Supreme Court, nor even the High Court, what to say of Supreme Court has issued any specific orders for applying the same in general to all the organisations, other than the G4S Security Services, in whose case the judgment has been delivered by the P&H High Court.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I appreciate your efforts for taking trouble to oppose tooth and nail my contention by quoting even the repealed Articles of the Constitution. Quotation of repealed articles, like 32A, 131A, clearly indicates that you are reading just between the lines, while the Constitution of India clearly indicates the facts of repealment against the Article concerned by clearly referring the relevant Constitution Amendment Acts of 1977 (both). Both the Articles were repealed 33 years back to be effective from 13.04.1978.
I don't have any objection, if you support the wrong opinion of Mr. Kamal, but I wonder a SUPER MODERATOR, like you, prefers to support the wrong views that too by virtue of super old knowledge of more 33+ years and also by misinterpreting the provisions of the existing Constitution of India tending to only mislead the community, rather than showing a right path or solution to the community seeking guidance from us.
Further, you probably forget that the Constitution has been divided in different sections/parts and the chapter of each part discusses matters pertaining only to matters related to that subject by not touching any other aspect. You can very well see that except the Articles 32 and 32A, all the Articles (131A,135,141,131,132,140,138,139) quoted by you discuss only about the "UNION JUDICIARY" to be applicable to ONLY the judiciary and not the public in general or business, etc. This aspect I have already mentioned in my last reply to Shri Kamal's post.
Now coming to Article 32, this relates to "REMEDIES for enforcement of rights" of the individual citizens. Needless to emphasize, remedies on arising of any dispute are sought by some one who is aggrieved, but cannot be assumed unauthorisedly by him. The Article very clearly states about the RIGHT TO MOVE SUPREME COURT BY APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS, not by presuming that the Supreme Court should itself presume about any dispute existing between individual to individual and start automatically moving itself, unless some one files a petition about the nature of dispute with some other party.
Article 32A, relating to Constitutional validity of State Laws, which was only deleted more than 33 years back, but also has nothing to do with the Central relating to EPFO.
I wonder, how as a super moderator you believe that the P&H judgment of July 2011 also has the same value as that of the Supreme Court when you very well know that the EPFO can still file an appeal with the Supreme Court against the orders under the provisions of Article 133 (as avoided quoting in your post) to get that quashed. Moreover, there was no direction of the P&H High Court for the EPFO to implement their judgment to the cases of lakhs of the contributing organisations.
You have also avoided to quote Article 142 of the Constitution along with other Articles in your reply. Probably, you have NOT tried to interpret the same where it clearly states that the Supreme Court has also to make such ORDER and prescribe manner to make any decree or order enforceable under any law made by the parliament and UNTIL provision in that behalf is so made in such manner as the President may by ORDER prescribe.
The Article, thus clearly emphasises on specific order by the Supreme Court for general application that too only up till the President of India makes any specific order and prescribes the manner in that respect. BUT NOT in any individual case to be implemented in general manner merely on presumption basis and without any specific authority issued either by the Supreme Court or the President of India. Here in this case the irony is that the order, itself, does not relate to the Supreme Court, nor even the High Court, what to say of Supreme Court has issued any specific orders for applying the same in general to all the organisations, other than the G4S Security Services, in whose case the judgment has been delivered by the P&H High Court.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Dingra,
I cannot teach you something, no matter how right it is, if you yourself don't wish to learn. I am giving you a link; please go through the same.
Supreme Court of India - Jurisdiction
Welcome to Indian Courts
About the repealed post: it has been put there for you to search the reason and process behind the repeal so that you get the idea of how things have evolved in the judiciary over a period of time.
Mr. Dingra, please don't mind. I have seen many posts that you have made on various websites of which you are a member, and everywhere I have noticed that you tend to get personal in a professional debate and start making personal remarks. Kindly understand the fact that you cannot always be right everywhere. I do not wish to get down and dirty by arguing and making personal remarks on members.
I wish to maintain the decorum of the forum; hence, I do not wish to indulge in further arguments on the above topic with you.
And I suggest caution that the law should be understood in totality and not on a section or article basis.
Regards,
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I cannot teach you something, no matter how right it is, if you yourself don't wish to learn. I am giving you a link; please go through the same.
Supreme Court of India - Jurisdiction
Welcome to Indian Courts
About the repealed post: it has been put there for you to search the reason and process behind the repeal so that you get the idea of how things have evolved in the judiciary over a period of time.
Mr. Dingra, please don't mind. I have seen many posts that you have made on various websites of which you are a member, and everywhere I have noticed that you tend to get personal in a professional debate and start making personal remarks. Kindly understand the fact that you cannot always be right everywhere. I do not wish to get down and dirty by arguing and making personal remarks on members.
I wish to maintain the decorum of the forum; hence, I do not wish to indulge in further arguments on the above topic with you.
And I suggest caution that the law should be understood in totality and not on a section or article basis.
Regards,
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
I am sorry to say that I would not like to reply to your inputs any further on this thread. The reason being, you have now made it a prestige issue and are trying to justify and prove your views, which is taking the topic off track. Your belief that only what you said is correct is wrong and not acceptable to me.
Repeating the words "wrong opinion of Mr. Kamal" a hundred times will not give you a certificate that what you said is correct. Moreover, you certainly cannot impose your views on the readers. I would only say that your interpretation of the words of the Constitution is different from mine, and my interpretation of Article 141 is based on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice G.B. Patnaik, Justice S.N. Phukan, and Justice S.N. Variava in 2002.
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am sorry to say that I would not like to reply to your inputs any further on this thread. The reason being, you have now made it a prestige issue and are trying to justify and prove your views, which is taking the topic off track. Your belief that only what you said is correct is wrong and not acceptable to me.
Repeating the words "wrong opinion of Mr. Kamal" a hundred times will not give you a certificate that what you said is correct. Moreover, you certainly cannot impose your views on the readers. I would only say that your interpretation of the words of the Constitution is different from mine, and my interpretation of Article 141 is based on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice G.B. Patnaik, Justice S.N. Phukan, and Justice S.N. Variava in 2002.
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.