The question of the legal nature and the binding nature of explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation remains debatable in the literature. When considering criminal cases, the courts do not always follow the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court. It seems that the explanations of the Supreme Court, while not being a source of criminal law, are nevertheless binding on courts and officials applying the norms of criminal law. This is a general rule, to which there are exceptions. First, there are erroneous explanations of the Supreme Court, which are not based on the established judicial practice and are not supported by it. Second, there are outdated explanations of the Supreme Court that do not meet modern legal realities. Third, there are explanations of the Supreme Court, which, in relation to a particular situation, require an expansive or restrictive interpretation. In these three situations, the Supreme Court’s explanations do not bind the law enforcement officer. The binding nature of the Supreme Court’s explanations is determined by the value of the law as such. Questions of law require a uniform resolution. An alternative to a uniform interpretation of the law is arbitrary administration. Arbitrary administration is not within the competence of the judge. There is no case law in Russia. The works of legal scholars in modern Russia also cannot satisfy the need for a uniform interpretation of the law. The significance of the explanations of the Supreme Court determines the high requirements for their quality. The Supreme Court’s explanations should not directly contradict the law. The Supreme Court’s explanations should not change unless there is an urgent need to do so. The rule nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, being an achievement of legal culture, binds the Supreme Court. By clarifying the practice of applying the law, the Supreme Court forms and preserves judicial doctrine, thereby providing legal certainty.