IT is worth revisiting two judgments of the Supreme Court. A five-judge Bench has ruled in P. Ramachandra Rao versus State of Karnataka: “Courts can declare the law, they can interpret the law, they can remove obvious lacunae and fill the gaps but they cannot entrench upon in the field of legislation properly meant for the legislature.”
In Rajiv Singh Dalal (Dr) versus Chaudhari Devilal University, the Supreme Court, after referring to its earlier decisions, has observed as follows. “The decision of a court is a precedent if it lays down some principle of law supported by reasons. Mere casual observations or directions without laying down any principle of law and without giving reasons does not amount to a precedent.”
In October 2012, in Girish Deshpande versus Central Information Commissioner & others, the Supreme Court gave a judgment that had the effect of amending the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 made by the Parliament. Though it is not supported by reasons or any principle of law, it has been treated as precedent by many courts and information commissions.
