STARE DECISIS.

A PROJECT SUBMITTED TO:

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI.

BY

ABHIDHA GUPTA (1868)

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF DR. K.P. SINGH

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR

THE AWARD OF DEGREE OF B.A. LL.B.

PUNJABI UNIVERSITY, PATIALA, PUNJAB.

SUBMISSION YEAR: JANUARY- MAY 2023.

1
 DECLARATION

It is certified that the project work presented in this report entitled “STARE DECISIS”
embodies the results of original research work carried out by me. All the ideas and references
have been duly acknowledged.

Date of Submission: 3rd April 2023 Name- Abhidha

Roll No.: 1868

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my teacher Dr. K.P. Singh for giving me this opportunity of making this
project. I would also like to thank my college Army Institute of Law, Mohali for providing me
with the resources to carry out the research and make this project. I would like to extend my
grateful attitude towards my parents, friends and family for their continuous support. Last but
not the least I thank the Almighty for all his blessings.

Name: Abhidha Gupta

Roll No.: 1868

3
 INDEX

S. TOPIC PAGE NO.

NO.
1 INTRODUCTION 5

2 OBJECTIVES OF THE DOCTRINE OF STARE 6

DECISIS
3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF 8
STARE DECISIS IN INDIA
4 DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS AND 10
ARTICLE 141 OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION
5 INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF STARE 12
DECICIS
6 TYPES OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS 14
7 DOCTRINE OF PROSPECTIVE OVERRULING 15

8 CONCLUSION 17

4
 INTRODUCTION
Stare decisis, commonly known as the precedent concept, states that the decision made by the
higher courts must be followed by the lower courts and is binding on them. It also establishes
precedence for the lower courts.

The phrase “Stare Decisis” comes from Latin. Stare decisis is a contraction of the Latin
expression "stare decisis et non quieta movere." The meaning of this expression is “To stand
by decisions and not to disturb settled matters”.

According to the Stare Decisis doctrine, courts base their judgments on earlier, analogous
cases. "Precedents" are these prior rulings that courts have cited. Precedents are legal doctrines
or regulations established by judicial rulings. Judges will use these rulings as precedent or
guidance when deciding cases and situations of a similar nature in the future. Courts are
required by the Stare Decisis doctrine to consider precedents before making a judgment.

This doctrine states that principles that have been established, acknowledged, and followed for
a while shouldn't be readily abandoned. The courts cannot ignore the harm that would
presumably result from changing established law or practise while diverging from it. This idea
was first put forth in medieval England and America, where judges had the authority to reject
cases they did not think were excellent or thought were terrible in their judgment while also
using the verdicts of prior cases as advice.

5
 OBJECTIVES OF THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS

When the same legal issues are raised in future situations, the court is supposed to follow the
rulings in earlier cases. This is known as the doctrine of precedent. The main objectives that
are advanced by the idea of stare decisis are as follows-

1. Helps in organizing society according to Law- By accepting that their activities are
legal, the idea of Stare Decisis gives people more confidence when organising their
social and commercial transactions.
2. Promotes Private Dispute Resolution- Because the court's decision may be based on
the outcome of a comparable, previously determined case or legal matter, the notion of
Stare Decisis promotes private dispute resolution. Instead of using the traditional court
process, the parties to a disagreement may seek private dispute resolution because they
already know the resolution of a comparable legal matter.
3. Reduces burden on the Courts- The burden on the courts is lessened by the Stare
Decisis doctrine. In circumstances when rulings have already been rendered, it does
away with the need for further litigation. Additionally, it reduces the need for new
lawsuits whenever a judge or bench changes.
4. Ensures Public Trust in Legal System- As it places some limitations and restraints
on the judges' authority, the Stare Decisis theory helps to increase public trust in the
legal system. For instance, the Stare Decisis doctrine mandates that judges reach
predictable decisions that are based on reason.

The foundation of the Stare Decisis theory is the preservation of clarity, constancy, and
consistency in the legal system. A judicial system that incorporates the elements of regularity,
reason, and stability needs precedents most. The aforementioned philosophy guarantees that,
regardless of the judiciary and its jurisdiction, a legal question is addressed based on precedent-
setting decisions.

In Hari Singh v. the State of Haryana (1993)1, it was determined that one of the key principles
to remember in a legal system run by courts is that the courts within the same jurisdiction must
have similar opinions regarding related legal questions, issues, and circumstances. If there is
disagreement among the opinions offered on related legal matters, judicial chaos will result

1
1993 SCR (3) 61.

6
rather than judicial harmony. A decision about a specific case that has been upheld for a while
cannot be changed solely because another viewpoint could exist.

Additionally, it was determined in the 2005 case of ICICI Bank v. Municipal Corporation of
Greater Bombay2 that the Apex Court's ruling must be understood in light of the context of the
relevant statutes. Additionally, it was stated that if a judgment is legislation, it cannot be read.
The applicable concepts and laws dictate that the law cannot always be static, so judges must
apply precedents with caution when making decisions.

2
2005 (6) SCALE 110.

7
 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF STARE DECISIS IN INDIA

In ancient or medieval times, Stare Decisis was not a doctrine practised in India. The idea of a
binding precedent was first brought to and used in India only after the establishment of British
control in the nation. In the year 1813, Dorin proposed that the doctrine of Stare Decisis be
adopted. The reporting of decisions and the concept of the hierarchy of courts were both
developed by the British legal system; these two components are necessary for the Stare Decisis
doctrine to operate.

At Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras, the British built the Supreme Courts and the Sardar Diwani
Adalats. The High Court Act of 1861 was passed, allowing for the issuance of letters patent to
establish High Courts. Such High Courts were competent in both original and appellate matters.
As a result, the British created a system of courts that are organised in a hierarchy.

The idea of Stare Decisis was formally recognised in India by the Government of India Act,
1935, which expressly rendered the rulings of the Federal Court and the Privy Council binding
on all courts in British India. The Federal Courts, however, were not obligated by their own
rulings. The precedent doctrine has been upheld in India since independence.

According to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950, all courts located in Indian
Territory must follow the "law declared" by the Supreme Court of India. The phrase "law
declared" implies that the Supreme Court has the power to enact laws. According to Article
141, the ratio decidendi of a case, not the obiter dicta or the relevant facts, shall govern. The
law established by the Supreme Court in such decisions must therefore be appropriately
construed in the particular case at hand whenever a lower court wishes to follow or apply the
decision of the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court is not, however, obligated by its own rulings. In Bengal Immunity Co. v.
the State of Bihar (1955)3, the Supreme Court ruled that nothing in the Indian Constitution
prevents it from overturning a decision it has already made if it is convinced that it was wrong
and that doing so might harm the public interest. As far as the High Courts are concerned, their
rulings are enforceable before any lower courts that fall under their purview.

In the case of Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeesham (2002)4, the Apex Court held that a
High Court does not have the authority to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling merely on the

3
AIR 1955 SC 661
4
(2002) 2 SCC 420

8
grounds that the Supreme Court's ruling had established principles without taking into account
any relevant legal considerations. Additionally, in the case of Pandurang Kalu Patil v. State
of Maharashtra (2002)5, the Supreme Court had further emphasised that the decisions of the
High Court should be based

5
(2002) 2 SCC 490

9
 DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS AND ARTICLE 141 OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION

In this part, we will discuss the concept of Stare Decisis with reference to Article 141 of the
Indian Constitution.

 Article 141 and Ratio Decidendi of the case

"A decision cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect under Article
141 if it is not express, not supported by reasons, and does not proceed on the basis of
consideration of the issues." 6

The Supreme Court's idea of precedents in regard to law is given constitutional status by
Article 141. In the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra7, a five-judge panel chaired
by S.P. Bharucha, C.J. declared that "a precedent is the law of the land for itself, and for all
Courts, Tribunals, and authorities in India."

As a result, a provision of the Constitution now requires the lower courts to follow the
Supreme Court's ruling on the law. Only when the ratio decidendi of the judgment is
binding will it be deemed that the operation of the concept of precedent is consistent with
conventional legal theory.

There is no question that the ratio decidendi, which is enforceable under the theory of
precedent and unquestionably the declaration made according to Article 141, is the case.
There are High Court judgments that hold judgements to be binding upon High Courts even
when there is no ratio decidendi available in a case8.

 Article 141 and Obiter Dicta of the case

Obiter dicta may be a statement of opinion or sentiment with no legal weight. Statements
that are not included in the ratio decidendi are obiter dicta and are not conclusive. Even an
obiter dictum, however, is occasionally expected to be adhered to and observed. Sometimes
thoughtful Supreme Court obiter dicta are regarded as a precedent, but not every judge's
casual utterance should be recognised as law. Therefore, all observations of points raised

6
S. Shanmugavel Nadar vs. State of T.N, (2002) 8 SCC 361.
7
[2002] 4 SCC 388
8
Maddukuri Venkatarao vs. State of A.P., AIR 1975 AP 315.

10
and decided by the court in a particular case would fall under the law that will be binding
under Article 141.

11
 INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF STARE DECICIS

Now let us discuss a few institutional facets of the stare decisis concept.

1. Judicial authority to increase statutory power

The Supreme Court took action and increased the authority granted by Article 141. The
National Human Rights Commission was given a directive by the Supreme Court in
Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab9 to investigate and report on extrajudicial murders in
Punjab. The Commission's authority was then questioned in light of its legal responsibilities
and restrictions, such as the ban on conducting further investigations after a year has passed
as stated in section 36(2) of the 1993 Protection of Human Rights Act. The decision of the
Supreme Court to refer the case to the Commission was upheld as having been made in full
exercise of its authority under Article 32, which effectively designates the Commission as
a body sui generis with the authority to carry out Supreme Court orders. According to the
Supreme Court, a body might be granted jurisdiction to operate outside the bounds of its
jurisdiction by following its commands and directives.

2. Tribunals must abide by precedent

The Supreme Court ruled, in a decision that was binding on the tribunal, then they must
abide by it. A tribunal is required to abide by the rules established by the relevant High
Court and Supreme Court.10

3. Two rulings by equal Benches

In Kalabai Choubey v. Rajabahadur Yadav11, the High Court had to decide which verdict
to go by after two equally weighted Supreme Court benches rendered conflicting judgments
on the same matter. In this matter of motor vehicle claims, the Supreme Court rendered
multiple decisions on the topic at hand from Benches of equal strength. Following a review
of various Supreme Court rulings on the binding nature of precedent, the Court declared
that it is not required to follow all decisions or decisions that are rendered later in time, but
rather may do so if it believes that one is sounder from a legal standpoint. It further stated
that the High Court must follow the judgment that, in its opinion, states the law more fully,
precisely, and in accordance with the design of the Act, even if the decisions of the co-

9
[1999] 2 SCC 131: 1999 SCC (Cri) 109.
10
Rooplal vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi, [2000] 1 SCC 644:2000 SCC (L&S) 213; Govt. of A.P. vs. A.P. Jaiswal,
[2001] 1 SCC 748: 2001 SCC (L&S) 316: AIR 2001 SC 499.
11
AIR 2002 MP 8.

12
 equal Benches of the Supreme Court are in direct disagreement. The lower courts cannot
be forced to follow either of the Supreme Court's opinions. In such a scenario, a decision
must be made, no matter how challenging. Because what seems elaborate and true to one
person may not be so for another, this could produce uncertainty.

4. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overruled by High Courts

In the case of Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan12, the Supreme Court ruled that it
was unlawful for a High Court to overturn an Apex Court ruling because it had established
the law without taking into account any other factors. The Constitution of India mandates
in Article 141 that the law announced by the Supreme Court will be binding on all courts
inside the country, therefore it is not just an issue of discipline for the High Courts in India.

The court stated that Privy Council rulings are binding on High Courts so long as the
Supreme Court does not overturn them in Pandurang Kalu Patil v. State of Maharashtra 13.

5. High Courts' obligation to support the Supreme Court

When the Supreme Court rules on a principle, the High Court or Subordinate Courts are
required to follow that ruling. The Supreme Court recently stated in the case of Director of
Settlements, A.P vs. M.R. Apparao14 that "a judgment of the High Court which refuses to
follow the decision and directions of the Supreme Court or seeks to revive a decision of the
High Court which had been set aside by the Supreme Court is a nullity." \

12
[2002] 2SCC 420:2002 SCC (cri) 344.
13
[2002] 2 SCC 490: 2002 SCC (Cri) 371.
14
[2002] 4 SCC 638.

13
 TYPES OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

Now let us discuss, different types of Judicial Precedents given by the Courts.

 Declaratory precedent - A declaratory precedent is a precedent in which a rule already

in place is used to resolve a legal issue.
 Original precedent - When an original precedent arises, a new piece of legislation is
created to implement it in a case. One may argue that the primary driver behind the new
legislation is the original precedents.
 Persuasive precedent is a type of precedent in which a judge is not required to follow a
particular precedent in relation to a legal issue, but has the duty to take the precedent
into consideration before making a decision.
 Absolute Authority Precedents - In the instance of an absolute authority precedent,
judges are required to abide by a certain precedent while making a decision in a legal
matter. Furthermore, even if the judge disagrees with the precedent, they are still
required to follow it.
 Conditionally Authoritative Precedents - In the case of conditionally authoritative
precedents, the relevant judge is required to follow the precedent in its current form,
but only under specific circumstances. If a court's ruling is not logical and legal, the
judge may disregard it.

14
 DOCTRINE OF PROSPECTIVE OVERRULING

In a legal system, the Supreme Court’s ability to reverse earlier rulings implies that the judicial
system has the capacity to amend or enact new laws in response to shifting social demands.
The following conditions favour overturning:

a. The contested decision was made recently.

b. The jury's verdict was split, if not evenly balanced.

c. One of the judges who participated in the majority judgment in the previous decision believes
he made a mistake when he held the opinion he did on the previous occasion and is now willing
to change his mind.

d. The inconsistent reasoning used in the concurring opinions makes the determination on the
issue less than obvious. In other words, it's unclear what the ratio is on the topic.

a. An incorrect constitutional interpretational judgment that has caused public hardship or

discomfort.

f. The power of review must be used responsibly, cautiously, and to further the welfare of the
public.

 A.K. Gopalan’s case overruled

A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras15 was a case that came up as a result of the well-known
Indian communist being imprisoned According to the supreme court, the phrase "procedure
established by law" in Article 21 should be given a broad and ambiguous interpretation similar
to that of "due process of law" as provided by the U.S. Constitution, but it only refers to state-
made statute laws, and if any statutory law prescribed a procedure for denying a person their
rights or personal liberty, it should comply with Article 21's requirements.

However, this judgment was overturned in the case of R.C. Cooper v. Union of India16, and
following this, the Supreme Court rendered a number of judgments, notably Maneka Gandhi
v. Union of India17, where it was decided that any law that robs someone of their life and
liberty must be equitable and fair.

15
AIR 1950 SC 27.
16
AIR 1970 SC 564.
17
AIR 1978 SC 597.

15
  Golak Nath Case18

The Golak Nath case verdict, which was handed down by an eleven-judge panel,
established the Supreme Court's authority to prospectively reverse its past rulings. This
theory had previously been employed by American courts to accomplish particular goals
in certain circumstances.

The Indian Court established some conditions restricting the use of the theory in the Indian
system because it was the first time the court had used this American doctrine. It was
established that:

I. The doctrine of prospective overruling may only be used for issues arising under
our constitution; and
II. It can only be applied by the Supreme Court, the country's highest court, as it has
the constitutional authority to declare the law binding on all courts within India's
territory;
III. The Supreme Court has the discretion to modify the retrospective application of the
law it declares, which supersedes its earlier decisions, in accordance with the justice
of the case or matter before it.
 Mandal Commission Case19

In the Mandal Commission case, the idea of prospective overruling also makes an
appearance. Justice Jeevan Reddy made the decision in this case that the ruling will take
effect five years from the date of the decision. As a result, the court extended the time
period from the judgment date to five years before implementing the decision. In this case,
the doctrine's application is being expanded, and the duration of the judgment's effect is
also being prolonged.

18
I.C. Golak Nath & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., AIR 1967 SC 1643.
19
Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477.

16
 CONCLUSION

The continual application of the principles of precedent and stare decisis stands in the way
of society's changing structures and trends. Conclusion: Although common law generally
recognises precedent as binding, judges may occasionally deviate from precedent when it
"appears right to do so" and they may distinguish between different precedents when
creating new law, suggesting that the importance of precedent varies with individual
judges.

Furthermore, as society changes, so do times and situations, and no era should be

constrained by an antiquated legal system. However, Cardozo, J. asserts that despite a
judge's ability to reject the old and adopt the new, he must keep in mind that the past
frequently serves as a reflection of the present and that, "for the depths are the foundation
of the heights," he must know and understand it.

In light of this, it is clear that the theories of stare decisis and precedents encourage
consistency and certainty in all judicial judgments. These doctrines also aid in encouraging
convenience for the attorneys and judges, as it is convenient to pass the same judgment if
the facts of the case are similar when a legal matter has previously been decided and made
binding. In an effort to regain the public's trust in the judicial system, it also aids in lowering
the likelihood of errors being made by judges when rendering a decision.

One of the problems with binding doctrines is that judges are forced to adhere to well-
established precedents and the principle of stare decisis rather than applying their own
judgment to the facts of the case. The fact that these doctrines are flexible and not
necessarily binding is one of their notable characteristics.

17