In my limited understanding of the things, I write…
1. The HC/SC, everyday, lays down so many propositions of law, while they interpret the laws.
2. It is well settled that HC/SC interpret the provision of any law, in its letter and spirit, and, ordinarily, they don’t invent or legislate; and therefore, ordinarily, the law laid down in any of the judgments are applied retrospectively, suggesting that, “the law laid down” was in fact the intent of the law at the time of its enactment, and said proposition has not emerged by reason of court judgment.
3. In our pleadings / arguments before the Court, invariably, we rely on, one or the other HC/SC judgments, advancing the proposition of law illustrated in the said judgment.
4. My proposition is: In our pleadings / arguments, instead of stating / arguing that “HC/SC has said this, or has laid down the said proposition of law”, the “proposition of law” laid down may be stated /argued in the first instance, and then, it may be stated / argued that, the said proposition of law was reinforced and affirmed by the HC/SC in their judgment.
5. There is a fundamental difference in these two things – in one case, the argument is advanced on the footing of a judgment; and in another case, the argument is advanced, founded on a reasonable / sound proposition of law.
6. It is experienced that, judgments cited before the Courts are hastily overlooked or are summarily and arbitrarily dismissed by saying that, “does not helps the party” advancing it.