Skip to content

CMA Foundation · Fundamentals of Business Laws and Business Communication · Primary and Subordinate Legislation

A High Court in State X decides a point of law. Later, a trial court in State Y faces the same point, and the Supreme Court has not decided it. Which statement is correct about the High Court decision?

The High Court decision from State X is merely persuasive for the trial court in State Y. A High Court's ruling binds only courts subordinate to it in its own territory. Only law declared by the Supreme Court binds every court in India.

  1. AIt is only persuasive for State Y's trial court, not bindingCorrect
  2. BIt is binding on all courts in India
  3. CIt is binding only on the Supreme Court
  4. DIt has no value as precedent anywhere

Explanation

A High Court decision binds courts subordinate to it within its territorial jurisdiction. Courts in another State are not bound by it, though they may treat it as persuasive. Only the Supreme Court's law binds all courts in India. Saying it binds all courts confuses High Court and Supreme Court authority.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Primary and Subordinate Legislation shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Primary and Subordinate LegislationFree diagnostic mock

More Primary and Subordinate Legislation questions