 Amongst us, we have Aparna Nandkumar, a famous advocate and a tax consultant. And today's topic is quite interesting for the perspective of a lawyer. To the effect, what is the doctrine of sub-silent show and doctrine of perincurium. These are two aspects wherein normally there's a lot of debate and there's a lot of judgments on what aspects can be considered as perincurium or sub-silent show or as to whether they are same or there are subtle difference between the two. And those who have been connected with the Beyond Law CLC and those who have been watching us on the YouTube channel. We have had Aparna Nandkumar on a previous session somehow due to some technical effect. That session is not there. I was saying that they can watch it, but at the same time I realized that. But without taking much time being a weekend and as we are approaching towards the winter holidays also a request. Aparna to take things forward and explain the things in her usual style of simplicity. And at the same time covering the legal aspects. Thank you Vikas and thank you once again for inviting me. In fact, last occasion, we had a very nice debate or rather a day to date with his Lordship Justice Kothari. And that was on the development of law in the GST aspect. What are the issues faced after the inception of the GST enactments. Now we are on the interpretation of statutes. A particular, not only just, I would not call it strictly an interpretation of statutes. It is more of interpretation of terminology of two terms, especially sub silencio and perincurium. Which is an essential aspect in a lawyer's life when quoting precedence. Now before I go into the concepts of sub silencio and perincurium. I would first take you all, or rather discuss about the doctrine of precedence. There is a history to it. And all of you are very familiar with the Latin maxim, which is Starrie Decises. Ethno, Quieta, Movir, that is the entire Latin maxim. Normally we shorten it and we say Starrie Decises. Starrie Decises is the doctrine of precedence. And the meaning of this Latin maxim is stand by what is decided and do not unsettle the established. Therefore, this is an aspect which is a judicial discipline followed by the courts. And this has been the judicial discipline that has been followed in the English courts as well. And in fact, this particular Latin maxim has been applied as early as 1890s, 1880s, that early this doctrine has been applied. So I will be going through the history of the common law of England and the judgments of the House of Lords. What occasions the judgments were considered as precedents and what occasions there was a deviation from the doctrine, from the established doctrine of precedence. So I will be taking you through these judgments and then the judgments have been followed by the courts of the, by the Indian courts, Supreme Court, and then Supreme Court decisions have been followed by high court, various high courts. So what would be what context and what would be the circumstances in which the concept of subcilent show and perincurium would be applicable and what as because was rightly saying what is the subtle difference between these two terms. So that would be my general outflow of the topic. Okay. So, what exactly would this study diseases mean to the courts. It means, in fact, there is one beautiful English judgment, which I will be referring which say which states in very simple terms what exactly is the doctrine of precedence. Unwavering judicial loyalty is considered to be more important than judicial individuality. It's a very beautiful way in a very simple terms doctrine of precedence has been explained I will say it once again unwavering judicial loyalty is considered to be more important than judicial individuality. Now, tracing the history of the judgments of the English courts, I will be referring to a few judgments, a very interesting judgment, which is be amish versus be amish. The citation is 1859 11 English reports 735. Please sharing the citations later because all the some judgments are also available in Google and some judgments have been referred by the Supreme Court and various high courts, therefore, these judgments are very important. Now in this case, there was a very interesting, you know, aspect which was being discussed. There was a clergy, there was a doctor who had several sons, and one of them was a clergy man. Now, the English law common law of England required that for a marriage to be that is in those days, a marriage to be performed, there must be the presence of a clergyman to solemnize a marriage. Now what happened one of the brothers was a clergyman, he fell in love with the person and without the consent imagine those days just like like our Indian system in those days the consent of the father was necessary. He did not get the consent of the father and he married her and he said this marriage is a valid marriage. This marriage was attacked, the validity of the marriage was attacked by his own brother. And that is why the citation is be amish versus be amish that is one brother attacking the solemnity or the validity of the marriage of his own brother, stating that the presence of the clergyman is necessary to validate a marriage. Now, this the clergyman who got married, he said see I myself am a clergyman and therefore I you can, it is enough if the person that is the man and the wife are there for the marriage to get solemnized. However, if you take it more and say that a clergyman should be present, I myself I'm there, therefore it is a valid marriage. Now what happened, the there was an argument that in an earlier decision a very early very very early decision, which is, I think as much earlier than 1859 this decision itself is 1859 much earlier than that there was a decision, which is Queen versus Willis. In that case, the House of Lord this judgment also came before the House of Lords was rendered by the House of Lords. So, the earlier judgment which was cited by the brother who had launched the case was Queen versus Willis. In that case, the decision by the House of Lords was that there must be the presence of a clergyman as a third person, not as a person himself, in order for a marriage to be validated under the common law of England. And what happened, very surprisingly, it's a beautiful judgment, please go through the judgment. If you see, they would have discussed the judgment and the laws, the common law, all the, you know, the applicable laws, and there would be comments such as, We do not actually agree with the decision of the House of Lords in Queen versus Willis, because what has been stated is not the right law is not the right precedent at all. Nevertheless, we have no choice, but to follow that judgment. And there would be, in fact, an advice to the head of the House of Lords saying that you have to review the judgment, not in this case, that cannot be possible because that point has not been raised, but it should be reviewed in a later judgment. And that the decision, the precedent, the precedent that has been created by Queen versus Willis should be set at naught. Now, subsequently, so this was the earlier position, now subsequently what happened, in fact, to be very precise, at that point of time, the aspect of or the argument of Perinchurium or subsidence was never raised. Subsequently, this judgment that is this Biamish versus Biamish was referred to in a subsequent judgment, which is London tramways. And in that London tramways, there is a observation, a very beautiful observation, which says that a decision by the House of Lords is final. It cannot be set at naught at all, and it can be set at naught only by a subsequent amendment to the laws. I will just give you the exact wording, exact sentence. It reads, a decision of this House upon a question of law is conclusive and nothing but an act of Parliament can set right that which is alleged to be wrong in a judgment of this House. Therefore, this was the position. Now, coming to the exceptions, that is, now, as I said, when is a judgment of precedent? Now, as you all know, there are two parts for a judgment. One is the ratio decided in day and the other one is the obitur dicta. Now, as far as the ratio decided in day is concerned, it becomes a wholesome precedent when all arguments, all points of law are canvassed, are dealt with by the judgment. And if there are any decisions which have already touched upon those points of law or arguments, if those decisions are there, those decisions should also have been dealt with. Therefore, if all these aspects are there, then it becomes a ratio decided in day, which is an authoritative pronouncement of law on the particular subject or particular issue. Subsequently, what happened in the case of Gerard versus Paris? This was the first ever case, which was attacked in a later case on the basis of sub silent show. So I will just explain this Gerard versus Paris and then I'll come to the later judgment in which this Gerard versus Paris was attacked on the basis of sub silent show. Now, before I go to these judgments, you have to understand what exactly is the term sub silent show. Now, this term sub silent show is actually not much used in the Indian country, it has been used very few judgments you would see. In fact, the first judgment, I think it is of the year 1989, which I would be discussing municipal corporation. Subsequently, they have been discussed, but the aspect of curriculum has been discussed more, have been applied more than the aspect of sub silent show. So what exactly is the term sub silent show? Sub silent show is the, this has been very beautifully brought out or defined by Fitzgerald in Salmon versus Salmon on jurisprudence. The definition is, I'll just just turning the pages so that I'm sorry for making you wait just a minute. Okay, I'm not able to find it right now when I find it. But basically, when a particular point of argument, yes, yes, I found it. I'll just read that so that you will be in a position to understand and then I'll take you to the judgment so that the expression sub silent show is really explained well. The relevant paragraph by Fitzgerald is a decision passes sub silent show in the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the court or present to its mind. Okay, now how do you understand this particular term? For that I'm going to refer to Gerard versus Paris. This Gerard versus Paris is a, this has oft quoted judgment by the Indian courts by the Supreme Court in municipal corporation. Municipal corporation is a landmark judgment on the aspect of sub silent show, which has been followed by several courts and also current both. Okay, so in this case, in this case of Gerard versus Paris, I'll give you the citation later, I'll give it to you later. So in this case, there were two points of argument. The first point was, what would be the priority as far as the data is concerned that is to satisfy the creditor what is his priority that was the first argument. The second argument was whether garnishing proceedings can be taken against the account held by the official liquidator in in a liquidation proceedings. Now Gerard versus Paris only the first point was canvassed and that was decided. Subsequently, in a decision Lancaster, this Gerard versus Paris was cited as a precedent. So the House of Lord said Gerard versus Paris is not a precedent at all, especially for the second argument because the second argument, although should have been taken because two points of law should have been raised. The first point of law is the priority of creditors. The second one is the whether garnishing proceedings can be launched against the account held by the liquidator. That point was never canvassed was never dealt with. And therefore Gerard versus Paris cannot be cited as a precedent and this particular term sub silent show has been used in that judgment. So for that, I'm going to take you to the judgment of municipal corporation. I'm also going to give you the facts arising in municipal corporation. I'll just take you to the paragraph. So this paragraph, this particular. Yes, yes, it says it passes sub silent show because that point has not been argued at all. So this decision this Gerard versus Paris and Lancaster were referred to by the honorable Supreme Court. Perhaps this is the first case on sub silent show. Which is municipal corporation of Delhi versus. The citation is 1981 SCC 101. Now, this is a very interesting case where there was some squatters that is hawkers who are allowed who are given license by the municipal corporation to carry on trade near a hospital. They were only given license to sit on the payment and do the, you know, daily trade. But what happened, many of them started erecting temporary structures. So the hospital complained to the municipal corporation and the municipal corporation they had the powers under section 322 of municipal corporation act to evict them. So immediately, the, the squatters filed a civil suit before the civil court and stated that see we are holding license. The license has been granted by the municipal corporation and therefore we are entitled to do business there and we can erect temporary structures. The civil court said, see, you have been given a license, no doubt. But then that doesn't mean you can erect temporary structures that cannot be done. So that was the decision. Subsequently, what happened was about 10 or, about some of them, you know, 10 or 15 of them were given permission by the municipal corporation itself to erect temporary, to give, you know, erect temporary stalls to construct some kind of a temporary structure. So what happened, based on that, two other squatters, Jamuna Das and his brother. They approached the honorable Supreme Court under article 32 and sought for a mandamus stating that see people persons were equally place like us, they have been given some kind of a treatment, I mean, better treatment than us they have been given permission by the municipal corporation to erect temporary structures so why not us. So this went on and on and on subsequently what happened at one point of time municipal corporation came up with a sketch. And they said, All right, we will give them permission. And it was in fact in that judgment. It's I think it was in the year 84 1984 in that judgment. No point of law was touched. It was a consent order. The municipal corporation agreed to give them a space to do the, you know, do the trade perform the trade and also give them permission to erect temporary structures. It was a consent order. And there was a specific observation by the honorable Supreme Court that this cannot be considered as a precedent because it is a consent order. Now, after this judgment, there was another squatter called Gurnam Corp. This Gurnam Corp approached the High Court of Delhi and cited the decision in Jamnadas and said, See, when Jamnadas can get the benefit, why not I. So Delhi High Court followed the decision of Jamnadas Supreme Court Jamnadas decision and granted the direction and they directed the municipal corporation to give the same benefit as extended to Jamnadas. Matter was carrots municipal corporation carried it to Supreme Court. And this is the decision municipal corporation versus Gurnam Corp, where the decisions in Gerard versus worth of Paris, and then Lancaster all these decisions have been dealt with very beautifully and this was the first time ever. When the concept of sub silent show has been pronounced by the honorable Supreme Court. So they said, See, the point of law that should have been argued in Jamnadas was whether another, there was another, yes, there was another direction by the Delhi High Court saying that if you're not able to give the space here, you should give an alternative accommodation. So this kind of a direction was too flamboyant and Supreme Court said, See, first of all, the Jamnadas decision is not a precedent at all. It cannot be a precedent because it is a consent order and there is a specific observation by us by the honorable Supreme Court that it should not be treated as a precedent. Nevertheless, it has been followed and it should not have been followed. And why is why is it not a precedent not only for the reason that there's a specific observation there is another yet another reason. The reason being that no point of law has been canvassed by both sides municipal corporation should have said that see we have the right to evict we have the we can give license we mean they have the in fact if you see the section no notice itself is necessary. That's the statute itself says no notice is necessary even if a chair is on the payment they can simply remove it without notice. That is the provision. Therefore, these kind of points of argument were never canvassed. And therefore, it is a subsoil and show it is it has never spoken about any point of law no argument has been taken. And therefore, this is not a precedent. Now this judgment has been followed by many high courts whenever the aspect of parankuriam or subsoil and show has been placed. Now, when the, in fact, I would say the consequences of subsoil and show and parankurum would be the same because the a particular decision would seems to be a precedent. If these two aspects one of these two aspects is present is the theory or is the is the what should I say the concept that has evolved. Now what is parankuriam. In fact, the term parankuriam, you have to go to a one beautiful judgment of the honorable Supreme Court where it has been discussed, which is Poojesh. There is a different. Yes, this is the decision in Narmada Bachao Andolan was a state of Madhya Pradesh, which is 2011. Okay, yeah, 2011 Supreme Court 1989. Okay, so I will just take you to that paragraph very beautifully just been this is paragraph number 59. It says, I'll just read it. It's instead of saying it I think I should read it because it's a beautiful judgment in Korea literally means carelessness in practice, parankuriam is taken to mean per Ignoration. The courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of study diseases. Thus, the courtable in law is avoided and ignored if it is rendered an ignorance of a statute or other binding authority. So you see the subtle difference between sub silencio and parankuriam sub sub silencio would occur or that aspect that doctrine would occur wherever a point of argument, which should have been canvas that is a point of law which should have been canvas has not been canvas has not been touched upon parankuriam would arise where a particular statutory provision or a particular judgment is not referred to which touches upon that point of law arises and that judgment has not been referred to so that is the subtle difference between these two. I will go a little further to explain what exactly is parankuriam. See, in the context of parankuriam, I will just explain one very interesting case which I dealt with, which arose under the commonado value added tax act. It's a because it's a quote experience which I underwent therefore I just wanted to share it with you. See, this is a case where you've all heard of these exempt scripts. So, exempt scripts are intangible goods under the bad act. So, they fall under. See, we have schedules that is a schedule prescribes the rate of tax. So it falls under the first schedule which is 5%. So what happened this particular petitioner, he purchased the exempt scripts and he claimed input tax credit because he sold those scripts and you know sorry he sold plastic granules which was also taxable at 5%. So he said, see I am purchasing exempt scripts at 5%. So I am paying a tax as an input tax. And when I'm selling plastic granules which also falls under the first schedule 5%, I can offset the tax that I paid at the input end. This was the argument. And in fact, the matter went against before the assessing authority. We filed a petition because it is a legal point. We filed a petition. And the argument that was taken by the department was that there is a division bench judgment on the same aspect which is against the assessing. Now, by going through the division bench judgment of the on the, of MetaCycle only, in that this particular aspect that it fell under the first schedule that is this exempt scripts fell under the first schedule was not canvassed. And in fact, there is an observation that it does not fall under any schedule. Okay. But this decision was cited before the honorable single judge, because it was a repetition and repetitions in the MetaCycle comes before the single judge. And before showing the judgment, he was completely in my favor. He said, of course it falls under the first schedule. It can be offset. It's a very open and shut case. But once the division bench judgment was shown to him, he was in a fix. His logic was in a fix. He said, See, there is a division bench judgment, right or wrong judicial discipline demands that I have to follow it. Now, I, I said, in fact, I took the argument of per-inclusion because I said that this aspect that it falls in the first schedule has not been properly decided at all. And if the act itself is very clear that it falls in the first schedule, therefore it can be offset. But then the, if you see the judgment that came, that is the most beautiful aspect of it. The judgment that it's about a 10 to 15 page judgment, 14 and a half pages will be in my favor. The last paragraph would say, yet there is a division bench judgment, which is, which is binding on me because I'm a single judge. Therefore, I have to dismiss the repetition. And I made his logic, but Justice Kothari was sitting in the tax bench at that time. And I took the matter by way of a written appeal. Just by saying, I showed all the 14 and a half pages in the last paragraph, he didn't say anything is an admit interim state. Of course, the matter is not yet heard. Do you see that even though the aspect of per-incurium is present, why I'm trying to say this here is that this per-incurium is a concept that cannot be used everywhere. Because judicial propriety, judicial discipline, which has been oft quoted, oft quoted by the high courts, they say, whether it is right or wrong, that's why I said, I had quoted when I spoke about the doctrine of precedence, I said, Judicial, the term, that's a beautiful saying, it says, judicial loyalty is considered to be more important than judicial individuality. A single judge has to be judicially loyal to the division bench judgment, right or wrong. He is, the judicial discipline has been established in such a way that a single judge cannot comment on the propriety or propriety of the decision by a larger bench. Now, coming to division benches, suppose there are two division benches which differ and this aspect of per-incurium is, you know, canvas or sub-silent show, for that matter. If it is canvas, what would be the reaction by the bench? For that, there is yet another decision by the honourable judge, I thought, is that there, in fact, you have to go through this judgment. I was just going through, in fact, I didn't have the time to go through the entire judgment, it is a full bench. Please go through this judgment because it discusses about precedence, value of precedence, what would happen if one division bench wants to differ from the decision of a division bench, what exactly? It clearly says that if one division bench differs from the view taken by another division bench, whether on the point of per-incurium or sub-silent show or whatever, the right way is only to refer it to a larger bench and then a full bench will be formed and, you know, you all know that, I don't have to go through all this. This decision is, I don't know whether you can, yes, you can access Manupatra, Manupatra, you can take down the decision, the citation, it is Philip Jai Singh versus joint registrar. It was decided on 22-1992. I'll leave you with the citations later. So, aspect of per-incurium cannot be canvassed, it can be canvassed, of course, I'm not saying it should not be canvassed, it can be canvassed but it will not be considered by a single judge when you canvass it as against the decision of a division bench even before another division bench because judicial propriety demands uniformity. So, in what circumstances can per-incurium be canvassed? Okay, I will refer to another decision of the honorable Supreme Court, which is quite a recent decision, unicorn industries. In this, this is a very interesting judgment. It is, I will tell you the citation later. See, this is a case where that the question arose under the central excise enactment, whether exemption which is applicable to the main levy, that is a mother levy, that is tax or duty, excise duty or sales tax or whatever, or customs duty or whatever. So, it should be applicable to cesses, like education says or what is that Krishikalyan says or you know this land says or whatever. Is it, would it be extended to the cesses also was a question. Now, there were two decisions by the honorable Supreme Court, division bench judgment, please remember division bench judgment in SRB nutrients and Bajaj auto, where they confirm the decision taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Banswara and they said, yes. See, whatever is, it is actually an ancillary levy that is a cesses an ancillary levy. So, whatever is applicable to the mother, maybe that is a duty or the tax would be applicable to the cesses also because it is only an ancillary levy. See, you taken by the Supreme Court division bench in two decisions that is SRB nutrients and Bajaj auto. Subsequently, these two decisions came to be looked upon by the larger bench of the honorable Supreme Court in unicorn industries and they found that there was a decision in the year 1986, which is the decision is Modi rubber, Modi rubber union of India versus Modi rubber where the honorable Supreme Court was a larger bench decision, which had dealt with a similar issue and in that decision, the honorable Supreme Court larger bench have taken the view that see tax or duty is an independent levy and it has no bearing on the cesses is also an independent link. Therefore, whatever is applicable, suppose an exemption is applicable to the duty, a central access duty or custom duty, whatever that may be, that cannot be extended to the cesses which is not dependent on the mother levy. You cannot even call it a mother levy, both are independent of each other. So, the two decisions of the division bench that is Bajaj auto and SRB nutrients was set and not as perincurium because it had not considered the decision of the larger bench which had been pronounced in the year 1986. Now, one aspect you have understood what perincurium is because a decision an important decision of the larger bench of the honorable Supreme Court had never been brought to the notice of the division bench of the Supreme Court in these two cases. And therefore, that was never considered and that was that is the reason why it was held to be perincurium. The second aspect that we have to notice is it is a larger bench of the Supreme Court which can say or which can set up not a decision of the division bench on the aspect of perincurium by saying that it cannot be a precedent because it suffers from the fally of perincurium. You understand now. Okay. Okay, now, suppose you are faced with a case where you are arguing a case before the High Court, and you are faced with the Supreme Court decision, which has, you know, pronounced, pronounced the judgment or it has not even dealt with a particular point of argument like in the case of a sub silencio. That aspect has never been touched upon. And you are taking the argument that because this particular argument was never taken was never convinced. Therefore, it is a sub silencio and is not a precedent which can be applied. Can you take that argument is a question. It's a it's a burning question. This aspect has been dealt with by the honorable madras High Court. This is also a very, very beautifully dealt with judgment, which arose in the commercial jurisdiction, which is QD Cetamon QD Cetamon versus P Suresh. Now, before we go to the judgment, I will, the judgment has, has a passing remark they have this is the Lordship Justice Sundar has referred to the English law that arose on this aspect on the doctrine of precedence. There was a case which arose before his Lordship Justice Denning, which is Broom versus Castle, Broom versus Castle, sorry, Broom versus Castle, yes. So in Broom versus Castle see, his Lordship Justice Denning was sitting in the Court of Appeals, which is a lower court, as compared to the House of Lords House of Lords is like our Supreme Court and High Court. So in Broom versus Castle, not Denning took the view that the decision taken by the House of Lords on that particular aspect which he was dealing with in the case of Brooks versus Bernard is not correct. And he said, I will not follow it because the decision by the House of Lords is not correct. He was so bold. So the matter was taken before the House of Lords, that is the appeal as against Lord Denning's, you know, judgment. And the House of Lords came very heavily on Lord Denning and said, see, how can you ever do that? There is something called judicial discipline. Right or wrong, we have pronounced the judgment and you are bound to follow. You cannot disturb, this will only lead to anarchy and you cannot disturb what has been settled by us. And as I told you, the London tram based case, there was a clear cut category decision that any decision by the House of Lords will not be disturbed at all, and it can be done only by a further amendment by the Act of Parliament. Now, there's another case. In fact, in this case, in fact, more interesting. In this case, there was, you know, this also arose before Lord Denning. This is a case which is Shawl's mayor versus Henning, which arose in the year 1975. There was his decision was that, you know, this award for damages could be given in foreign currency. That was his decision. He refused to follow the decision of the House of Lords in United Railways. In United Railways, which was rendered in the year 1961, the House of Lords had taken the decision. Let's see, an award can never be pronounced in foreign currency. You know, imagine an Indian court giving an award in US dollars. It's something like that. So the House of Lords said that cannot be done. No, Lord Denning. Is it see 15 years have passed since 1961. And he uses the word sessante rationing, which means such circumstances cease to exist. Now the circumstances have evolved. Society has evolved. So you cannot fall back upon a decision which was rendered 15 years back, even though it may be House of Lords. Because the circumstances now cease to exist. Therefore, an award can be pronounced in foreign currency. This matter was once again taken before the House of Lords. And in fact, there were two judges. One is Lord Denning, the other judge, he gave a dissenting judgment. And I don't agree with Denning. So matter was taken to House of Lords and House of Lords once again came very heavily, came down very heavily against Lord Denning. Surprisingly, in a subsequent matter, in fact, very next year in 1976, in the case of Milambos versus George Frank, the House of Lords was faced with an identical point, identical point. Whether an award could be pronounced in foreign currency and the House of Lords took the very same view that Lord Denning had taken. So you see, in order to maintain a judicial propriety or judicial discipline, a lower court, however right he or she may be, cannot take a decision contrary to the decision taken by a higher forum. That is judicial propriety. Therefore, whether the aspect of parancourium or subsilent show can be canvased only when, you know, that particular aspect has not been dealt with, but yet the courts will be very, very shy enough to interfere in such cases, because judicial propriety or judicial discipline demands that the doctrine of precedence should not be disturbed. Now, in this particular, the all these decisions were referred to, and the argument that was taken in this QDC term, that is the decision before the metro cycle was that subsilent show is an exception to article 141. Article 141 gives the presidential value to the honorable Supreme Court decisions, which says it is law. It is law laid down by the highest court of the land. But the, his law, Laws of Justice Sundar has referred to a decision of the seven decisions and one important decision, which is Sugundi Suresh Kumar versus Jagdishan, which arose before the honorable Supreme Court in the year 2002. And I will just read that paragraph, because it will make us understand that subsilent show cannot be canvased as an exception against the judgment of the honorable Supreme Court. It is impermissible for the high court to overrule the decision of the apex court on the ground that the Supreme Court laid down the legal position without considering any other point. Okay, so here, please understand this is the, okay, because I said something, okay, we will, we will discuss it. So, it says that this aspect of subsilent, although they have not specifically mentioned this concept, this is what the honorable Supreme Court has meant that the lower court, the high court is can is absolutely not permitted to overrule the decision of the apex court on the ground. That the Supreme Court laid down the legal position without considering any other point. It is not only a matter of discipline for the high courts in India, it is the mandate of the constitution as provided in Article 141 that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. Therefore, the concept of subsilent show I'm just winding up now, because I'm just awaiting questions to be asked, because it's an interesting and I am sure most of you may not agree with me, I'm happy about that. So, the concept of subsilent show and Barun Kuryam are only Brahmastras, which can be used only in the right, you know, in the right way. And it cannot be used everywhere, it cannot be used in every forum. You have to be, you have to use it very, very carefully. It may also not be accepted. So, I will just wind up. Yes, Vikas. Vikas. Yeah. So far, only one question. There is. There are two contradictory decisions, both by coordinate judges. Three judges by honorable Supreme Court in Pratish versus state of Maharashtra 2002, which says preliminary inquiry in 340 CRPC is not mandatory and accused cannot participate. But in Sharad Pawar versus Jagmond Dalmia 2016, which says preliminary inquiry is a mandatory in section 344 CRPC and accused can participate, which one holds good as both are by three judges. That's a fantastic discovery. Of course, I have to go through those judgments. But normally another judicial discipline that is usually followed by the courts is the latest is followed, which is the latest? Sharad Pawar versus Jagmond Dalmia. Okay, so the latest is followed, but has the earlier decision been referred to in this judgment? He has not spoken about that. Okay, so we'll look into that. It's an interesting thing. Give me the citation. I will look into it and perhaps, okay. No, he says no, ma'am. Okay. He says no. Okay. Even otherwise, we have a full bench also in shift, which says the larger one view is that the Not discussed. Not discussed. He says not discussed. No, there are two views even in this. I've seen that one says that you have to follow the letter one. Yes. Another says that what you find that it is more prudent, let's assume it is of the same strength. But that the same strength carries maybe refers to a much larger bench which takes into the queue. Perhaps. The decisions referred in that decision also make a difference. Yes. Even though it is by the same strength of judges, suppose in the earlier judgment, it refers to a larger bench. You know, perhaps that could have a, but normally what is followed by the high courts is the Supreme Court is the latest decision is applicable in such cases. And even otherwise. This is not a refer to no larger bench. Okay. Okay. Okay. Please give me the citation. It's interesting. I'll also have a look at it. See every for all of us, it's learning, you know, what I have told what I know I have told you what I have learned I have told you. So whatever you know, please tell me so that it'll be mutual. It's not one sided at all. Yeah. And even otherwise in these also principles that also happens even if in two in one of the judgment it could happen that a statute is considered rules are rules and regulations are concerned. And another is there is no interpretation as such and then there is a judgment. That is why I quoted that judgment about the exit scripts. In fact, in that, in that judgment, if you see the, that particular schedule has not been discussed at all. It's merely says it doesn't fall in any schedule. Actually it follows there is an entry that is it follows falls in the first schedule. And that that being shown to the honorable high court before the division bench then the judgment would have been in favor of the SSC. And we also have a one judgment out here. Latest I'm remembering that was part of leave in cashment. The learned single judge that I do not even want to does not require to be referred to a larger bench because the first judgment is simplicity on the basis of the first thumb rules principles but the rules and a full bench had not been considered. So he says that once the rule has not been considered. The full bench was not brought into the notice to the learner single judge therefore in that particular matter. Subsilent show has been employed then. Yeah. Yes, good. Yeah. So I just was checking it out on the YouTube also we don't have any sessions except that they've said excellent session by Mr. Kanan then the Prithach Sharma says thank you ma'am and Dr. Amrita says it's a great session. Thank you. Yeah, even on the Facebook I was seeing. So thank you everyone. It's a great it's a great learning for me because see I you have given me the opportunity to look into the English laws. Very interesting. Please go through all these judgments. Beautiful language is used. In fact, there is one particular statement which I forgot to mention. I'll just mention that and then we'll wind up. There is one judgment and forgetting which judgment I'll just look through. It says in fact it is a deviation from the doctrine of precedence. It says not all judgments are ex-cathedra statements. Beautiful statement, beautiful way of expressing it. What is an ex-cathedra statement? It has a biblical reference. I believe in those days the pope used to come outside the cathedral and would state principles which were dogmatic principles which had to be followed. There was no you cannot raise a finger. Not a question against the pope. Whatever he said was a law. If he said that the God had only three legs. Yes, God has three legs. That's all. So that was those were called ex-cathedra statements. So there is one judgment which says that see all judgments are not ex-cathedra statements. I look up with judgment. Please go through that. And all the judgments are very beautiful judgments, especially I've mentioned about the Jason case. He was a very renowned judge of the metropolis. A very erudite gentleman. He is no more. But please go through those judgments. This QDC is also a very beautiful judgment. All the judgments that I've cited are very beautifully rendered. One will come to, you know, we'll get to know what exactly is the doctrine of precedence, doctrine of subsidence, all these things. You know, we can have, you can have a very broader view of all these aspects. So thank you very much Vikas for the opportunity. Even otherwise in webinars, we say that we are just giving you a bird eye view. Yeah. And you can always. I will share somebody, Mr. Khandung has asked me to share. I will certainly share. They know that we share the judgments as in when the speaker shares with us. Yes, I will send a mail or WhatsApp view so you can share it with him. I will share it on the WhatsApp. And tomorrow we will have the session of part 10 by Justice V. Ramkumar on charge and discharge on section 222 of CRBC. Two stay connected with us tomorrow at 5 p.m. And thank you for sharing your insights. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. And happy weekend to all of you. Thank you.