The article explains a recurring confusion in Indian litigation: a Kerala High Court ruling on GST refunds does not bind a tax officer or court in Tamil Nadu. It is only persuasive value elsewhere, not binding law, even when it interprets a central statute like the GST Act.
Constitutionally, only Article 141 makes Supreme Court law binding on all courts in India. High Courts, created under Articles 214 and 216, exercise writ powers under Article 226 and supervisory control under Article 227 strictly within their own territorial jurisdiction; Article 235 similarly limits control over the district judiciary to the State's own High Court. Being a 'court of record' under Article 215 protects a High Court's own proceedings but does not extend its binding authority beyond its territory. Conflicting High Court views on central legislation are resolved only by the Supreme Court, including via Article 136.
Exam takeaway: remember Article 141 = pan-India binding precedent (Supreme Court only); Articles 226/227/235 = territorial limits of High Court authority; High Court rulings bind within their jurisdiction, persuasive outside it.