that is required for dispensing complete justice in any case. It shall be pertinent to notice here that as per Article 141 of the Constitution of India the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India, as such, the binding effect in the form of precedent is available to the judgments declaring law by the Apex Court. Article 142 of the Constitution of India nowhere refers judgments but decree or order. The decrees or orders passed by the Apex Court while exercising its extraordinary authority under Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be taken as precedent. It shall also be appropriate to mention that the Constitution of India nowhere prescribes any authority to High Courts akin to the powers available to Hon'ble the Supreme Court as per Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India. This Court, thus, is required to operate within the four corners of the statutes applicable. The resultant is that Hon'ble Supreme Court may grant release on bail or suspension of sentence without getting itself satisfied with the requirements of Section 37 of the Act of 1985, if that is necessary for doing complete justice, such an authority, however, is not available to the High Court or the trial court, as the case may be. As already stated, the order passed in the case of Mansingh (supra) is a reflection of the authority exercised under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, thus, is not having a binding effect or in other words, an authority of precedent for the High Court or the other courts subordinate. The judgments given in the case of Dadu alias Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra (supra) and Rattan Mallik (supra) are laying down law, hence, are having binding effect and those are required to be adhered in their true spirit."
