Abstract:
“Judicial precedent is not only binding but also necessary for consistency.”
The Concept of judicial precedent constitutes a foundational source of law in common law systems, ensuring continuity, uniformity, and predictability in legal decision-making. Originating in England under the principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere “to stand by what is decided”, the doctrine was transplanted into Indian jurisprudence during the colonial period and now enjoys constitutional sanction under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, which declares that “the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.”
At the core of the doctrine lie two jurisprudential tools: ratio decidendi and obiter dictum. This distinction is critical, as the binding force of precedent is confined to the ratio, while the obiter may inspire judicial reasoning but lacks compulsion.
Precedents are classified into various types including binding and persuasive, declaratory and original, authoritative and conditional each performing a unique function in shaping the law. Landmark cases such as Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), and Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1989) demonstrate the Indian judiciary’s reliance on precedents for constitutional interpretation, basic structure doctrine, and legal innovation.
A comparative analysis reveals India’s borrowed legacy from English and American jurisprudence particularly the analytical methods of ratio extraction and the technique of distinguishing cases. Yet, the Indian Supreme Court has often indigenized these doctrines to reflect constitutional morality and socio-political realities. Precedent in India is thus not merely retrospective but dynamic, balancing judicial creativity with constitutional supremacy.
In conclusion, precedents, through the interplay of ratio decidendi and obiter dicta, function both as a stabilizing force and as a catalyst for progressive change. They stand as a vital source of law, an interpretative authority, and a mechanism of constitutional dialogue within India’s democratic framework.
Keywords: Judicial precedent, Article 141, ratio decidendi, obiter dictum, stare decisis, case law, comparative jurisprudence, Indian Constitution.
- Introduction
In common law regimes, judicial precedent which is typically based on the principle of stare decisis is a fundamental source of law. It embodies the idea that earlier court rulings have normative power and should be followed when deciding new cases with comparable factual matrices. Judicial precedent holds a special place in jurisprudence at the nexus of positivist authority, interpretivist reasoning, and realism critique. Ronald Dworkin opposes the positivist detachment by arguing that judges must make use of legal principles ingrained in society morality, whereas legal positivists like H.L.A. Hart have emphasized the role of precedent as a secondary rule granting validity inside the legal system.
Legal formalism had firmly established a strict commitment to precedent, considering court rulings to be declarative rather than innovative. Historically, the authority of precedent developed naturally within the English common law tradition. Precedent is still a crucial source of law in the modern legal system, but it faces new challenges. Rapidly changing technological, environmental, and socio political environments are posing challenges for courts, making strict adherence to earlier rulings problematic.
This paper examines the development, jurisprudential underpinnings, and current difficulties of judicial precedent as a source of law, critically analysing its function in forming legal systems in the face of shifting global, technical, and social environments.