A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court passes judgment in a matter. In a later case before a high court, a party presents the Supreme Court judgment as a binding authority. The opposing party claims that the high court is not bound by the Supreme Court's judgment because relevant provisions of law were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court in that case. Which of the following is most correct in this case?
Principle: Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.

A. Since the relevant provisions of law were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court, the five-judge bench's decision is not 'law' within the meaning of Article 141, and is not binding on the high court

B. The Supreme Court must expressly declare that its judgment is binding on all courts within the territory of India when passing judgment. In this case, the Supreme Court has not done so, and therefore, the decision of the five-judge bench is not binding on the high court

C. The High Court cannot ignore the decision of the Supreme Court on the ground that relevant provisions of law were not brought to its notice. Under Article 141, it is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court

D. Only those decisions that are passed by a larger bench than the five-judge bench would be hinding on the high court, since legitimate doubts have been raised about the propriety of the five-judge bench's decision

E. The decision of the five-judge bench, since it is in conflict with other decisions, must first be decided upon by a larger bench on the Supreme Court. Only after that would the decision be binding on all other courts under Article 141 of the Constitution

Answer: Option C