Every branch of organised activity has its disci­pline. Law is no exception. The due process of law and the rule of law would become mere claptrap, as observed in Fuzlimbi vs. Khader Vali, AIR 1980 SC 1730, if judges bound to obey precedent choose to disobey on untenable alibi. These observations had fallen from the highest court of the land when it had noted that a crystal clear ruling of that court was almost defined by the disiagenous process of distinguishing the decision. It has to be remembered that without departing from judicial discipline, no subordinate court or tribunal can whittle down, wish away or be unbound by the ratio of the decision of a higher court. It is also worth pointing out that a decision does not lose its authority "merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered and fallaciously reasoned" as stated in Ambika Prasad vs. State of U.P., AIR 1980 SC 1762, by referring to Salmond's 'Jurisprudence' page 215, 11th Edition, So, every new discovery or argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent.

2. We have opened the judgment with those thoughts because it has been noted by us that though a special B