Importance of Judicial Precedents


Author: Omkar Abhijit Thosar, Advocate Balasaheb Apte College of Law (ABACL)

Introduction

The principle of separation of powers which states that the functions of the legislature should just be restricted to legislation processes, the functions of executive should just be restricted to administration and the functions of the judiciary should just be restricted to adjudication of disputes, this is not followed in the absolute sense in today’s era as states are no more just laissez-faire police state, rather the states are regarded as welfare states wherein their functions are not only restricted to maintenance of law and order, but also extends to building healthcare institutions, improving and maintaining the educational infrastructure, developing governmental schemes which benefit the backward class of citizens, etc.

The states today are overburdened with a lot of welfare-oriented functions and hence the executive also legislates through delegated legislations wherein the executive authorities have been entrusted with the power to make rules and regulations which are essential in order to maintain law and order. The legislature also adjudicates in some cases wherein a member of either house of parliament is debarred due to some kind of unlawful conduct.

The judiciary also legislates wherein the judicial precedents are set out either in the course of the matter (mostly through interim orders) or while the court pronounces the judgement.

Proof:
The significance of judicial precedents is undeniable as so many precedents set by the judiciary have been regarded as law wherein there is absence of an adequate legislation governing that particular matter. However, it is also true that the judiciary refrains from interfering in the functions of the legislature as far as possible as in many cases the court has observed on a particular point in the case that this is the responsibility of the legislature and that the court doesn’t have the authority to interfere in such functions of the legislature.
The court has also time and again observed in many cases that the power of judicial review cannot be disregarded with respect to the different legislations formulated by the legislature as well as the rules and regulations framed by the executive authorities through delegated legislation. Judicial review is essential as it ensures that both the legislature as well as the executive authorities do not act arbitrarily and that the citizens do not suffer due to such arbitrariness exercised by the legislature & executive authorities.

When a case is filed in the court challenging the constitutional validity of an act passed by the legislature, the court after hearing the detailed arguments of the learned counsels of the petitioner as well as the respondent & examining the evidence brought on record, the court while pronouncing the judgement will either struck down the entire act as invalid or will struck down only some sections of the act which the court deems to be violating the fundamental constitutional provisions or wherein there is a scope of arbitrariness being exercised by the government or any other authority established under that particular act or at the discretion of the court.

Although the doctrine of separation of powers is not followed in the absolute sense by the states in today’s era, the genesis of this doctrine is still followed. The genesis of the doctrine of separation of powers is that the respective fundamental functions of the three organs of the government i.e. the legislature, executive & the judiciary must be performed by the designated organs of the government itself. This can be illustrated as the fundamental function the legislature cannot be performed by the executive or judiciary under any circumstances and that the corresponding fundamental functions of the executive & judiciary cannot be performed by the legislature as well.

Hence, the court cannot formulate amendments to a particular act in question while pronouncing judgement in the concerned matter as passing amendments for a particular act is the basic task of the legislature which must not be done by the judiciary. At the most, the court can issue suggestions while pronouncing the judgement that the provisions of the particular act in question are outdated with respect to the current scenario of the society in the concerned domain of the particular act in question and that the amendments to that act should be formulated with a sense of urgency.

Although such suggestions given by the court are only directional in nature and whether to act on it or not, such discretion lies with the legislature itself.

Case Laws:

Petitioner: Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action

Respondent: Union of India & Ors.

Issues: Whether the current legal structure in the form of legislations as well as other ancillary rules and regulations with regards environmental degradation is effective or not.

Bench: The case was decided by a division bench of the Supreme Court.

Decision:
The court propounded the polluter pays principle in this case which stated that the one who is responsible for casing pollution must pay the expenses required for reinstating the environmental system exactly as it was prior to the damages inflicted by the pollution so caused. The polluter pays principle served as an important judicial precedent and was referred to in many cases concerning environmental degradation thereafter.

Plaintiff: Nasscom

Defendant: Ajay Sood & Ors.
Issues: The main issue in this case was that whether the act done by the respondents can be categorized as fraud or not.
Bench: The case was adjudicated by a single judge.

Decision

In this case, the court defined the act of phishing in the legal context thereby expanding the ambit of misrepresentation by linking it to the frauds committed on the virtual world of internet. This definition of phishing given by the court served as a significant judicial precedent due to the absence of any specific legislation governing the domain of cyber crimes and this definition of phishing was also referred to in many subsequent cases related to the commission of cyber crimes.

Abstract

The aforementioned cases highlight the importance of judicial precedents as these precedents have proved to be extremely beneficial in that respective legal domain. However judicial precedents are not only restricted to principles or doctrines being propounded by the court while pronouncing the judgement or through the course of the matter or the definitions given by the court in its judgement of the concerned matter but also include comprehensive guidelines issued by the court in case of a grievous matter wherein there is no specific legislation governing the issue in question.

The Vishaka guidelines which governed the rules & had obligatory force with a view of averting sexual exploitation at workplace are the best example of such comprehensive guidelines given by the court.

Keywords:
Judicial precedents, principles, judiciary, legislature & executive, doctrine of separation of powers


Conclusion

The role of the judiciary is extremely important in the effective governance and development of a nation. When the grievances of the aggrieved persons are not resolved by the executive authorities or if the aggrieved persons are exploited by influential individuals or reputed organizations, they have the belief that their grievances will not only be heard properly but also be resolved by the courts once they file cases against the concerned offenders.

Hence there’s this raging debate about the independence of judiciary which is eternally ongoing because it very crucial that the judiciary acts in an unbiased manner while deciding cases at all times and if a decision given by a court seems biased it is heavily scrutinized by public and media. But it also should be considered that the party against whom the decision has been passed by the court has a negative pre conceived notion against such decision and his viewpoint of the decision being unbiased cannot be given too much weightage as his viewpoint and the corresponding analysis given by him isn’t neutral.

Hence the public and media must realize that scrutinizing decisions of the judiciary is acceptable as we live in a democracy but unreasonable questioning and scrutiny of the judicial decisions will only result in anarchy in the nation and that is absolutely unacceptable.

Reference

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1818014/

https://www.indiancybersecurity.com/case_study_nasscom_ajay_sood.php

https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/separation-power-indian-constitution/

FAQS

Q1. What is meaning of judicial precedents?
Answer: Judicial precedents are principles/doctrines, definitions or guidelines propounded by the court while pronouncing the judgement or through the course of the matter (mostly through interim orders).

Q2. What is the significance of judicial precedents?
Answer: The significance of judicial precedents is undeniable as so many precedents set by the judiciary have been regarded as law wherein there is absence of an adequate legislation governing that particular matter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *