In a legal parlance “Citation” means ruling of the Court – literally it is Judgment or an Order passed by the High Court or the Supreme Court. Citation is also called by some Magistrates / Judges as “Authority.”
Citations are always good to an extent till it is referred by the Advocate to understand how a higher court has handled a case and also to that point to make him intellectually aware of the subject and the laws pertaining to that subject matter handled in the judicial pronouncement.
As no two person’s thoughts are similar, similarly, no two Judges rulings are the same, that’s why we see differences in judgments and or orders [of a same case] comes from the Courts, including Supreme Courts. The Trial Court Judgment might be rejected by the District Court, while a High Court may discard the findings of the District Court and it might come out with its own discovery and / or go with the Lower Court findings. The same is with the Supreme Court, a successor Judge may not have subscribed to the decision of his predecessor Judge in a case of similar nature handled by latter.
Long years ago a Supreme Court Judge had said, their Judgments have no binding on the Lower Courts and he justified his such comment by saying; Supreme Court has powers to pronounce Judgments and it has no powers to enact Law.
What he meant was; Law is different from Judgment. Judgment can never become a Law. Otherwise Judgment is, interpretation of Law. Hence, Law is supreme than the Judgment.
And what he literally meant was; Lower Courts need not blindly follow higher courts Judgments but interpret their own by application of their mind with regard to law and the case they handle.
In fact this Judge was mirroring the minds of our forefathers, who never wanted Courts would dictate terms on what could be Law of the Land.
Having said I emphasis to my readers please do note this Judge was not confronting with Article 141 of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows;
“The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India.”
The literal meaning of “Law” what this particular Article says is elaborately dealt in Chapter IV – The Union Judiciary. Even otherwise this particular Chapter itself an Ocean, and I think a Scholarly work requires to understand this Chapter.
Otherwise, my worry is, nowadays, more and more Courts are demanding Citations [from the Advocates] even when there is no question of law or any ambiguity exist in the provision of Law. It is just an application of mind and not beyond that – unfortunately Courts are literally losing intellectual arguments on the subject that an Advocate is willing to share.
Whose mistake was this?
From the very beginning, Advocates made the Courts rely on Citations and in return Courts are now becoming more comfortable in receiving Citations and pass Judgments / Orders. Most worrisome factor is that the Judgment / Order pronounced nowadays are not intellectually handled by the Courts.
Very unfortunate is that still Advocates are chasing Citations [to present to the Court] in support of their arguments when there is no ambiguity or the provision speaks for itself very clearly its correct interpretation. Sorry state of affair is that some Advocates who have put several years of practice in a Trial Court chose to file Citation together with 317 Petition [condoning the absence of Accused on the hearing day] for its admission. Very awkward is that even the Courts are accepting such Citation.
Citations could only be referred by the Advocates just to make them understand or update themselves how a particular provision was analyzed by the Appellate Court, and going beyond that would only make an Advocate handicap in the long run and he would not be able to roam actively in the Court Practice without the crutches of the Citations and that is fatal to his career.
Otherwise, always remember, Citations could only be read and digested for updating you – how a case was handled by the Trial Court and what were the defects brought by the Petitioner to the notices of the Appellate Court in the Lower Court’s Order by way of an Appeal or Revision and finally how the Appellate Court unraveled the mystery [raised as grounds by the Petitioner] in the case.
Since more and more youngsters are becoming Advocates nowadays and to those Advocates who wants to establish a successful career in Advocacy – my advice to them is – as long as you rely on Citations either you won’t develop your knowledge nor your skills in legal practicing and will never become a good legal practitioner. Otherwise, what is required is legal acumen. To just grow your legal acumen collect and refer Citations, but not to impress the Courts.