Binding force of Supreme Court precedent prevails; inconsistent High Court observations were set aside for fresh merits-based consideration.

Observations and directions of a High Court that conflict with law declared by the Supreme Court cannot operate as binding precedent under Article 141. The Court reiterated that subordinate courts must apply Supreme Court rulings with due respect, and that reasoning inconsistent with governing principles on arrest and remand is legally unsustainable. The impugned judgment and subsequent directions were therefore set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh consideration on its own merits, uninfluenced by the earlier observations.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court's observations and directions, being contrary to the law declared in Arnesh Kumar, could be treated as binding precedent and whether the impugned order required interference.

Analysis: The order reiterates that decisions of the Supreme Court are binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and that subordinate courts are expected to deal with such judgments with due respect. Observations made by the High Court which were inconsistent with the binding principles governing arrest and remand were found to be unwarranted and untenable. The Court also found that the reasoning adopted in allowing the revision was not sustainable in law, and that the subsequent directions issued by the Division Bench could not stand. The matter was left to be reconsidered on its own merits, without being influenced by the impugned observations.

Conclusion: The observations contrary to the binding law declared by the Supreme Court were held not to be a binding precedent, and the impugned judgment and order were set aside with a direction for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The decision preserves the binding force of Supreme Court precedent and restores the matter for independent adjudication on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Findings or observations of a court that are contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court cannot operate as binding precedent and may be interfered with for want of legal sustainability.

---