P. Ramachandra Rao, Etc. Etc vs State Of Karnataka

The Supreme Court, while allowing the appeals, emphasized the binding nature of the precedent set in A.R. Antulay's case [(1992) 1 SCC 225], asserting that subsequent decisions by smaller benches could not undermine its authority. The Court reiterated that any deviation from established precedents must be referred to a larger bench, thereby reinforcing the doctrine of binding precedents in judicial administration. The judgment underscores the Supreme Court's role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and protector of fundamental rights, affirming its jurisdictional powers as outlined in Article 363 of the Constitution of India.