AUTHOR : Rimsha Wagle, a first year student at Dharmashastra National Law University
To the point
The very fabric of society deems to be flawed with an inherent quality of insecurity present at the core of the human psyche and this very reality underscores the importance of the doctrine of “Stare Decisis”, the said doctrine not only brings with it stability but also a practice to put one’s trust in, brings support to the legal judicial system of dispensing justice. The doctrine establishes a proper hierarchy to be put in place and followed. This study also delves into the common law system where the concept of stare decisis thrives, precedents are celebrated and adhered to but also consequently can be departed from if justice is compromised with, this very ability of stare decisis to be flexible and rigid concurrently gives it its strength in the truest of sense. Stare decisis holds in high regard the true essence of providing certainty and stability. Judges have with them the benefit of an already formulated idea to provide assistance to the tiresome job they possess. A precedent which has the power to withstand the test of time has to have something correct in the core of it and thus it can be considered that that should be enough to dispense justice as in the case of a plethora of opinions emerging at every step would only create chaos and fail to dispense justice. Thus, stands tall the doctrine of Stare Decisis in the face of instability and unpredictability.
Use of legal jargon
Stare Decisis et non quieta movere is a Latin maxim which means, to stand by things decided and not to disturb the settled.
Ratio decidendi refers to the principle of law, which is the foundation of a court decision.
The concept of Vertical Stare Decisis refers to the decisions of the high courts that govern the decisions of lower courts.
Binding precedent refers to a precedent which is obligatory to a court and Persuasive precedent is a non-binding precedent which can also be taken into account as influential.
The proof
The modern reality which proves to be insecure to their bona fide core can only exist unwaveringly through a legal latin maxim of “Stare Decisis et non quieta movere”. And this very idea of an insecure world striving to reach security and stability in their truest of sense birth the doctrine of Stare Decisis, a legal principle which when expressed literally means “to stand by things decided”. It refers to standing by decisions and not disturbing which already has been settled. The golden annals of historic precedents, landmark judgements act as our guidebooks in the hallowed halls of law and justice, would only prove to strengthen the legal system. The doctrine acts as a bridge between the past and the future. The very concept of Stare decisis provides a much needed resolute stability without leaving any fragment of insecurity to reflect in the various stratas present in the society.
The Article 141 of the Indian constitution, entrenches the doctrine of Stare Decisis, which provides that law as declared by the Supreme Court is binding to all courts in Indian territory. The court should abide by the decisions taken by the higher court, without unsettling the settled for the preservation of a stable system. Stare Decisis reduces redundancy as well as when similar questions or arguments arise they can be answered by referring to previous judgements. Too many opinions lead to too much confusion which thus results in chaos, capriciousness and obduracy. Limiting and striving to reach that one precedent with the brilliant intelligence of the human minds will help reach quality answers and save time. Respect towards precedents provides the legal system with consistency and predictability without leaving room for arbitrariness. There exists the idea of vertical stare decisis which is binding on lower courts and horizontal stare decisis which is persuasive in nature.
Stare Decisis can be used as an instrument to interpret the constitution and not as a substitute for it. It should be noted that the rule of Stare Decisis should not be used as a means of frustrating the judge in the application and the judgement of the law, but the intention is to advance the legal system to benefit the society at large also it expedites the work of courts by eliminating reconsideration of already settled questions arising in the due course of time.
Common law was first introduced in India during the British colonial rule. Although it stresses on the system of precedents, common law gives enough flexibility in interpretation. A system of common law is when the decisions reached by a court create precedents, which guide any cases put before them. In this system, laws do not evolve only through legislations being passed in the hallowed halls of parliament but also through judicial decisions. The concept thus helps create a more secure legal system with sound stability and reduces the probability of reaching a state of judicial anarchy.
Judicial precedent refers to the decision of a qualified court of justice on a contentious point of law, becoming not merely a guide but an authority to be followed by all courts of inferior jurisdiction, until it has been overruled by a superior court. The concept of Stare Decisis does not only bring with it stability but also efficiency in the judicial system as the judges in the case of similar facts have a guidebook of sorts to resolve cases and do not have to start from ground zero. Thus when the law becomes more predictable and clear – resources and time get saved in turn.
Faith and trust of the society at large in the legal system deepens as the human psyche starts to believe that if the law has withstood the test of time by being consistent and fair.
Perception of the legal system enhances as it implies that the law is being applied impartially.
The doctrine dispenses equality and fairness as similar cases would be treated similarly irrespective of the individuals involved. This principle of stare decisis emphasises the continuity of application of decision-making, which in turn represents our legal culture. In this way is presented the idea that the kind of consistency in decisions made possess normative value.
The Doctrine of Stare Decisis offers integrity of our legal system in terms of application and sustainability because it will enable the citizens to hold a form in their minds that the fundamental ideas are based in the law, but not in the personal caprice.
Adherence to precedent furthers the effective and orderly administration of justice by preventing the rehashing of issues that have already been resolved by an official authority. The use of this doctrine guarantees the existence of homogeneity and determinacy in law. It saves time and efforts of judges and assists to avert capriciousness of judges.The doctrine thus ensures that at least over a certain period of time law remains certain.
This doctrine inculcates flexibility, laws change as per social changes and increased sophistication in the various stratas of the society Precedents provide proper guidelines to lower courts. Proper hierarchy is followed because of this doctrine which helps formulate quality decisions and justice is properly dispensed. It is also one of judicial restraints because it prevents a single judge in a lower court from making decisions that run contrary to the existing law as resolved by higher courts.
Stare decisis as a concept can only prove to be successful if the perfect balance is achieved between the binding and persuasive nature of the doctrine and simultaneously become flexible to adapt and evolve. One of the most crucial aspects of the legal system is its stability and predictability, this is achieved by following the precedent, but at the same time it is also important to understand that the law shouldn’t be static and should be able to keep pace with time and demands of society. By acknowledging these two principles Courts can ensure that the legal system will be just and fair for everyone.
As the legal realm and societies evolve rapidly, the existence of tensions between adaptability and stability pose a threat to the future of the doctrine concerned. The precedents must always mirror the values and insights of the society that keeps on shifting and evolving with time.
Activist judges would want to address the various issues that exist in the society and would work towards the promotion of societal justice but consequently too much judicial activism would lead to a situation where instability and unpredictability might become a reality. On the other hand, judicial restraint might create a situation of reaching high levels of stability but this might tamper with the development of the legal system and that can lead to eternal imbalance of right and wrong.. But Judicial Restraint would create a situation of promoted use of democratic institutions to reach substantive legal change. Originalism would require a proper skill set which is not omnipresent rather very hard to find. To navigate through the challenges posed above, courts would be required to strike a balance between stability and adaptability for the smooth and perpetual existence of the doctrine of Stare Decisis.
Abstract
The realm of the legal judicial system stands at the epicentre besieged amongst instability, unpredictability, distrust and capriciousness. The existence of these insecurities birth the idea of stare decisis, putting in place a more robust judicial system and navigating through towards a reality which ostends to be stable and certain. This principle eliminates any arbitrary rulings and in turn fosters a judicial system which adheres to be equitable in nature. The idea of stare decisis brings structure in a system scattered with multitude of opinions which only create chaos and confusion. A doctrine so efficient and effective cannot be consigned to oblivion rather should be celebrated and used for the benefit of the society at large. The nexus between adaptability and stability if achieved suitably would render the doctrine of stare decisis incontestable as change is omnipotent and omnipresent and cannot be ignored if one has to dispense justice.
Case laws
In Salman V. United States, Bassam Salman received inside information from his brother-in-law Maher Kara, who was an investment banker at Citigroup at the time. He used this information to earn an estimated $1.5 million.
While the lawyer for Salman argued that he should only be convicted if he paid his brother-in-law money or in kind, the Supreme Court judge concluded that insiders don’t always need to receive something in return for the divulgence of company secrets. According to stare decisis, the private information delivered to Salman was held to be a gift as it was clearly mentioned that any presentation of fiduciary duty is a breach, according to Dirks v. SEC. Hence Salman was convicted of insider trading.
In Hari Singh V. State of Haryana, it was held that courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction should have consistent decisions of cases of similar facts. A view which has withstood the test of time and has sustained should not be completely vandalised and thrown away because there is an existence of another opinion.
In The state of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali (1951), concerned with religious personal laws and their immunity from the scrutiny of the Indian constitution. The Bombay High Court held that under the ambit of article 13 of the Indian constitution personal laws will not be considered ‘laws’. They would not be subject to any judicial review for being inconsistent with the fundamental rights of the constitution.
The judgement of the case set a precedent that stood the test of time establishing that personal laws are beyond the ambit of article 13 and cannot be challenged if they violate fundamental rights. This judgement influenced numerous other judgements where courts refrained themselves from scrutinising personal laws under constitutional principles.
Shayara Bano V. Union of India began to challenge the interpretation of personal laws not being put under the scrutiny of the Indian legal system. The case in The Supreme Court discussed a Muslim personal law – the custom of Triple Talaq, the Supreme Court held that the said practice was unconstitutional because it violated the fundamental rights of Indian constitution. This led to a departure from a long standing precedent demonstrating how the doctrine of Stare Decisis can also evolve itself with the dynamic and contemporary views on constitutional rights. This very departure highlights the flexibility held by the doctrine of Stare Decisis to serve the true goal of reaching justice that humanity strives for. The concept is not absolute but establishes legal continuity.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, reflected the power that the doctrine holds and the need to move away from precedent when it starts to lose the sanctimonious essence of justice. Prior to the case of Brown, in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Apex Court affirmed racial segregation and concentrated on the principle of separate but at the same time remain equal.
However in the case of Brown the court recognised the unjust and cruel existence of inequality of the concept of segregated schools resulting in the overturning of the decision passed in the case of Plessy.
While this decision resulted in the departure from the long standing precedent, it was done to rectify an injustice grave, cruel and unempathetic in nature. By overturning the decision passed in the case of Plessy, the court established that Stare Decisis is not rigid in nature and can be flexible to dispense justice. It becomes of utmost importance to move away from a precedent when it becomes fundamentally flawed and starts to serve injustice
Essentially the court’s decision in Brown did not undermine Stare Decisis, instead only highlighted Stare Decisis as an instrument to dispense equality and justice.
Conclusion
The Doctrine of Stare Decisis acts as an anchor in the tumultuous and dark sea of legal interpretation and application. By its adherence towards precedents ensuring consistency, predictability in the complex system of judicial decision making.
The rigid application of the doctrine would stifle progress and perpetuate an outdated system of judiciary, thus it becomes imperative for the courts to balance the nexus between adhering to the judicial precedents and straying from the precedent.
Judges need to make sure that the law would continue to remain relevant and responsive towards the dynamic changes taking place in the societal environment at the epicentre of which lies the legal judicial system. The true strength of the said doctrine will be reflected in the nexus of stability and adaptability that it possesses. The doctrine of Stare Decisis has itself withstood the test of time, in a manner akin to that of the precedents which have withstood the test of time and have been used to find clarity in rendering judgements, thus proving its existence and importance analogous to that of the precedents.
FAQs
What is the doctrine of Stare Decisis?
The doctrine of Stare Decisis is a cardinal principle of common law, meaning “to stand by things decided.” It mandates that courts follow legal precedents set by previous decisions to ensure consistency, predictability, and judicial economy.
Why is Stare Decisis important to the Indian legal system?
Codified under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the doctrine ensures that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all subordinate courts, thereby maintaining a hierarchical judicial order and promoting legal certainty.
Can the doctrine hinder justice?
Rigid adherence to precedent without contextual flexibility may at times perpetuate injustice. Courts therefore balance judicial restraint with activism to ensure that the law adapts to evolving societal values while preserving foundational legal principles.
What is the role of Stare Decisis in constitutional interpretation?
Stare Decisis serves as a methodological guidepost, helping courts interpret constitutional provisions in alignment with past authoritative judgments. It ensures consistency in constitutional jurisprudence while allowing reinterpretation in exceptional cases.
