Thus, on a consideration of these decisions, the following principles emerge:
(i) The view of the dissenting judge of the Supreme Court relating to a particular point not considered by the majority will be treated as the law declared under Article 141 read with Article 145(5);
(ii) The minority view has to be followed as a binding precedent by the High Courts.
It is further submitted that if the minority view is to be taken as the law declared under Article 141, it will equally be binding on a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court.
Thus, if a minority view is taken by one judge in a five-judge-bench case, the view of the minority judge will be the law declared by the Supreme Court. The question that arises is whether the subsequent five-judge-bench can ignore the view of the minority judge or must refer the issue to a bench of seven-judges.
In my submission, the view of the minority judge should also be the law declared under Article 141 read with Article 145(5) and this minority view can be reconsidered and overruled only by a bench of seven-judges.
Source: Barandbench
