ABSTRACT
Precedent cases play a crucial role in judicial decision making and it ensures consistency, stability in legal ruling and fairness. The doctrine of Stare decisis, meaning in Latin “to stand by things decided,” is a legal principle that directs courts to adhere to previous judgments or judgments of higher or tribunals as it has persuasive and binding authority while resolving a case with allegedly comparable facts. Despite that, Courts can vary from precedent decisions when it thinks the laws are outdated. Although precedents ensure legal continuity, the power to amend them guarantees that law is relevant and fair. The present article discusses the function of precedents, their influence on legal adjudication, and when judges deviate from them.
INTRODUCTION
Indian legal systems, more so in common law jurisdictions, hold statutory precedents to be elements vital to a legal profession, whereby they can be used only with respect to guidance for future cases by reference to a body of previous judicial decisions. Stare decisis with an extension of meanings: to stand by things decided, basically, it ensures that courts stick to one judgment to maintain certainty and uniformity within the law. Following precedents thus uphold uniformity in judicial decisions before the public, hence, putting into trust the Judiciary. This is the reason why they do not make decisions arbitrarily whereby individuals and businesses alike can make adequate decisions based on precedents set in the judgment by the court in any near case circumstance. However the precedents provide attendant to stability, but they remain flexible in their non-immutable appearance. Courts may revise or discard the past decisions when they find it desirable in view of superior revisions of law, upon conviction of the passage of time or in the upshot of incorrect judgments carried out before. This dynamic approach allows the legal system to continue to be an intense partner in the life of the present in the world.
KEY WORDS
Stare decisis, Precedent Cases, Judiciary, Binding Precedent, Judicial Interpretation.
MAIN BODY
Kinds of Precedents
Precedents can be classified on the basis of their authority and application into:
Declarative Precedents: These are precedents which apply existing legal principles in new cases without modification to those legal principles.
Original Precedents: The original precedents are the application of the new law or making a new rule to the case.
Authoritative Precedents: These precedents tend to be binding on lower courts, of which there are absolute authoritative followed by conditional. The absolute authoritative is such that it must be followed by all lower courts. This, for instance, would refer to rulings from India’s apex court binding on all its subordinate courts. The conditional authoritative is such that it may be disregarded for valid reasons.
Persuasive Precedents: these are not binding but can carry much influence; an example here would be the ruling of one High Court that may not be obligatory but can yet serve as a guide for a ruling from others.
The important landmark Judgments which are followed in the courts are:
Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which limited Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan(1997). This was a case wherein guidelines were established to curb sexual harassment in workplaces; it later became the basis of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013.
Some elements which strengthen precedents in a judicial decision:
1.) Unanimity – A judgment rendered by a full bench possesses greater authority.
2.) Judicial Approval – If a superior approves a specific doctrine, the latter will get further strength.
3.) Eminence of the Judge – Judgments from well-known judges create more impact.
4.) Expert Opinion – Indicating learned consideration of legal scholars would strengthen the precedent.
Circumstances for Disregard of Precedents Courts:
1.) Dissenting -If in case another court disagrees with a precedent, its authority is weakened.
2.) Overruling-If a previous decision is overruled by a larger or equal bench.
[Ex. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) overruled by Kesavananda Bharati].
3.) Prospective Overruling-A fresh ruling is only given effect in future cases and does not apply to the past.
4.) Distinguishing-If the facts of a case are extremely dissimilar, the precedent is not applicable.
5.) Per Incuriam-A ruling that fails to acknowledge a pertinent statute or decision is not necessarily binding.
Ratio Decidendi & Obiter Dicta
Ratio Decidendi – Ratio decidendi is a Latin phrase; it means the rationale for the decision. the ratio decidendi is the position in a case that determines the judgment or the principle that the case establishes.
Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) created the doctrine of negligence, making manufacturers responsible for causing harm to consumers.
Obiter Dicta – The obiter dicta are a mere say. They have no any binding effect, it is the discussions held during the decision and this is the un necessary part of a judicial decisions
Doctrine of Stare Decisis
This principle holds that courts should adhere to previous rulings to ensure consistency and predictability within the legal framework. Nonetheless, higher courts possess the authority to overturn or amend earlier decisions when deemed necessary.
M. Lakhani v. Malkapur Municipality (1970) – Established that decisions made by the Supreme Court are binding on High Courts.
Critical Analysis
Judicial precedents are essential for maintaining consistency in legal outcomes. However, courts must strike a balance between following established rulings and allowing for flexibility to meet changing social and legal demands. While stare decisis offers stability, the capacity to overturn outdated precedents guarantees that the legal system remains fair and relevant.
CONCLUSION
Judicial precedents play a crucial role in ensuring consistency, stability, and predictability in the application of legal principles. The doctrine of stare decisis suggests that courts should generally adhere to established rulings to maintain a coherent legal system. However, the ability of the judiciary to overrule evidently outdated or unjust precedents serves an important function, that of permitting the dynamic demand of the law in accordance with emerging considerations of society. The separation of ratio decidendi (legally binding principles) and obiter dicta (and persuasive yet non-binding comments) is further elaborated upon to guide the application of precedents. In addition, precedents are categorized by the courts into either authoritative or persuasive ones, which will always depend on the type of hierarchy and perhaps the judicial reasoning. Although precedent functions to shorten judicial processes and negate uncertainty, it must always be applied with caution in order to avoid stiffness and rigidity. The equilibrium reached between the binding consideration of precedent and the cavalcade of needed reformation keeps justice free, changing, and constantly aware of the problems of the day. In summary, precedents are an indispensable part of the interpretation of justice and, through them, the law moves in the direction of progress.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY MARTHALA JOSHIKA REDDY
