Question.

Critically consider whether the doctrine of stare decisis allows the law to adequately
develop?
Answer
A trick which has been tried before successfully is called judicial precedent and is based on
Stare decisis which literally means to stand by decision already made or standing by of previous
decisions once a point of law has been decided,in a particular case that law must be applied in
all future cases containing the same material facts.It is considered to adhere to precedent and
not to unsettled things that are settled It is supposed to embody a rule a common sense to
wit.Rules of conduct should be settled so society will know how to conduct,binding on the
members of the society as such with this mind.
It is in consideration,either to stick rigidly with this doctrine a good thing or bad thing for the grow
of law, also it is worth noting that doctrine of stare decisis or binding precedent is a limitation
which the judiciary has imposed on themselves,just a judiciary discipline,not a parliament rule
so it could be modified for the growth of law,if it allows the law to adequately develop.
Any growth of the law must be ordered growth,legislation in character not judicial legislation.The
legislature acting for the people and directly responsive to the will of the people is the logical
and traditional agency through which errors in announced law may be corrected or such law
revised in accordance with public sentiment.
Adherence to precedent is not as passive as this analogy leads us to believe ,the path is not
always followed with closed eyes, but is a subject of modification by its followers .Nevertheless,it
is a fun way to visualise the somewhat meandering development of case law.
Stare decisis remains a controversial feature of the legal system that recognises it .Some jurists
argue that the doctrine is at odds with the rule- of- law,others argue that there are good rule-of-
law ,in favour of stare decisis .
This article considers one possible good rule- of -law argument as it suggests that stare decisis
should be approached in a layered way,looking at what the rule- of- law requires of the various
judges involved in the development of the precedent.One rule- of- law the principle of
consistency ,counsels against lightly over turning such precedents as there are.But that is not in
itself an argument stare decisis since it presupposes that precedent have already been created
.However there is another principle , the principle of generality ,which requires all judges to base
their decisions on general and not just leave them as freestanding particulars . A third principle,
the principle of institutional responsibility requires subsequent judges not to give the lie to the
use by precedent judges of certain general value norms to determine their decisions .And finally
the fundamental principle of fidelity to law requires the precedent judge to approach her decision
as far as she can by trying to figure out the implicit learning of such existing law is on the case
infront of her ,these three principles make up layered case for stare decisis .
So it would be fair enough to say stare decisis is the name of consistency and predictability in
the common law system ,and it reduces the uncertainty , without any rigidity in application of
this doctrine , and create a balance between predictability and flexibility ,as without it law
becomes anarchic and it loses coherence , clarity and predictability .