ABSTRACT
The doctrine of precedents is considered as a foundational source of law. It finds its roots in the common law principle of stare decisis which ensures predictability, consistency and fairness in judicial decision making. This paper, explores its evolution, application, benefits as well as challenges with a particular focus on the impact of judicial precedents on the development of the Indian judicial system.
Historically, the doctrine gained prominence during British rule, receiving statutory recognition under the Government of India Act, 1935, and further constitutional legitimacy through Article 141 of the Indian Constitution. The hierarchical structure of courts further strengthens its significance, as lower courts are bound by decisions of higher courts. While precedent fosters uniformity and efficiency, its rigid adherence may stifle adaptability to societal changes. This paper examines the balance between predictability and flexibility, the challenges of lower court defiance, and the interplay of binding and persuasive precedents. By evaluating landmark cases, the doctrine’s role in shaping legal systems and ensuring equitable justice can be better appreciated.
INTRODUCTION TO JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS:
The term source, when used for law, denotes the originating fount of the system. When employed in its plurality, it may be considered as a totality of rules and authorities arranged in a structural hierarchy such as legislations, customs, judicial decisions as well as doctrines.[1]According to Dr. Allen, “the true sources of law are agencies through which the certainty, uniformity, and binding force of rules of conduct acquire the character of law.”[2] Judicial precedent is one of the most significant and independent sources of law. Every country consists of a judicial organ the primary function of which is to render decisions in cases of disputes. The adjudication of disputes by the Judiciary is based on a dual foundation of customs and legislations. In India, the Judiciary interprets Legislative statutes which when augmented by the Judges’ inherent sense of right and wrong culminate in deciding the disputes. The decisions thus taken act as a guiding principle or authority for all the subsequent cases of a similar nature and are termed as Precedents. The significance and applicability of precedents has become a matter of contention in recent times. The issue lies not in the customary practice of making reference to previous decisions rendered by an appropriate authority and attaching relevance to the same. Rather, the challenge lies in the current practice of recognizing a precedent that was established many years ago as totally binding without giving due regard to the changing needs of the society.
Although it is undeniable that laws, rules, regulations, and legislative revisions made in many common law countries reflect the stance of the government at power andembody the prescribed practices formally recognized as binding on the community at large, case laws continue to occupy the position of one of the most powerful sources of law. When a statement is passed by a judge or a decision rendered in the court of law, it becomes obligatory on subsequent judges in lower courts to follow and apply the same legal principle in all matters of a similar nature in the future.
The theory of Precedents as per Salmond’s interpretation has two meanings: (1) recorded case law that can be referenced and followed by courts, and (2) stringent legal precedents that are not just highly binding but must be followed.[3]
Where a dispute arises which is not regulated by a pre-existing law, it will generally be the case that a court will not simply decline jurisdiction but will assume the role of a deliberative decision-maker, settling the dispute through an exercise of discretion. In legal systems where this is true, the courts will thus have a secondary function of dispute-settlement that extends beyond the application of pre-existing laws.[4] While precedents offer various advantages in terms of being time efficient, increasing convenience, predictability and stability, completely binding precedents may give rise to rigidity and confusion in terms of their applicability. This paper aims to highlight the role of Precedents as a source of law, the historical evolution of precedents, the types and theories associated with precedents as well as a critical appraisal of the practice of following precedents.
[1] Parviz Owsia, ‘Sources of Law under English, French, Islamic and Iranian Law: A Comparative Review of Legal Techniques’, Arab Law Quarterly, 1991, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1991), pp. 33-67, available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3381891
[2]Law in making (7th edition., Oxford University Press 1964)
[3]Fitzergerald P.J., ‘Salmond on Jurisprudence’ (12thed., Universal Law Publishing Co.) 175
[4]Stephen R. Perry, ‘Judicial Obligation, Precedent and the Common Law’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Summer, 1987, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Summer, 1987), pp. 215-257, available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/764304