`18. There is no doubt that the abovementioned decision gave various instructions from this Court, but we believe that this was done without any discussion of the validity of such instructions by the Court of Justice. The decision was therefore taken sub silentio. The significance of a sub silentio judgment was explained by this municipal corpn court. by Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur[10] (empty paras. 11 and 12) as follows: (SCC pp. 110-11) 41. Does this principle apply to a legal conclusion that has not been raised or preceded by a review? In other words, can such conclusions be regarded as a legal statement? Here again, the English courts and jurists have drawn up an exception to the rule of precedents. It has been declared as the rule of sub-silentio.

`A sub-silentio decision shall be taken in the technical sense associated with this sentence, where the particular legal crisis involved in the decision is not exercised by the court or is not present for it.` (Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th edition, p. 153). In Lancaster Motor Company (London) Ltd v Bremith Ltd.[22], the Court of Justice did not feel bound by an earlier decision, since it was rendered « without any argument, without reference to the decisive terms of the rule and without any mention of the Authority ». It was approved by this court in municipal corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur.[23] The Bench found that « the previous sub-silentio and without argument do not have a moment ». The courts have therefore used this principle to eliminate distorted injustices. A decision that is neither explicit nor based on reasons, nor based on the examination of the matter, cannot be considered a law made binding, as provided for in section 141. Uniformity and consistency are at the heart of the legal discipline. But what escapes the verdict for no reason is not ratio decidendi. In B. Shama Rao v Union territory of Pondicherry,[24] it was concluded that « it is trivial to say that a decision is not binding because of its conclusions, but because of its relationship and the principles set out therein ».

Any statement or conclusion made without recourse to the spirit or without reason cannot be considered a statement of law or authority of a general nature, which is binding as a precedent. . . .