Author : MATRAVI MISHRA BA.LL.B 2021, SRM University
JUDICIAL PROCESS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW
46021210033
In the world of law, the doctrine of precedent plays an important role in shaping how cases are decided. This practice, known as stare decisis, requires courts to follow the decisions of previous cases when the same legal points arise again. Let’s explore how this doctrine influences the legal landscape and ensures consistency in the judicial process. The “doctrine of precedent” is a legal principle where past judicial decisions, or precedents, act as guiding authority for future cases with similar legal issues, essentially meaning that courts are expected to follow rulings from previous cases when deciding on new cases with comparable facts, thus ensuring consistency and predictability in the application of law; this principle is often referred to as “stare decisis” in legal terminology. This document provides a comprehensive overview of the doctrine of precedent, a cornerstone of common law systems. It explores how past judicial decisions shape present cases, ensuring consistency and predictability in the application of law. The document will delve into the hierarchy of courts, the identification of binding elements within a judgment, the application of stare decisis, methods for distinguishing cases, the process of overruling precedent, the role of persuasive authority, and the advantages and disadvantages of this fundamental legal principle.
Understanding the Hierarchy of Courts and Binding Precedent
The doctrine of precedent operates within a structured hierarchy of courts. Higher courts set binding precedents that lower courts within the same jurisdiction must follow. This vertical element is critical to maintaining legal consistency. For instance, a decision by a Supreme Court is binding on all lower courts within that country’s judicial system. This ensures that similar cases are treated similarly, regardless of where they are heard. The concept of “binding precedent” means that the legal principles established by a higher court must be applied by lower courts when deciding similar cases. However, not all statements made in a judgment are binding. Only the ratio decidendi, or the reasoning behind the decision, carries the force of precedent. Other statements, known as obiter dicta, are persuasive but not binding. Different court systems have different hierarchies. Understanding the specific structure of a jurisdiction’s courts is essential for determining which decisions are binding. In federal systems, like the United States, federal courts and state courts have separate hierarchies, each with its own set of binding precedents. The interaction between these hierarchies can sometimes be complex, requiring careful analysis of the applicable law. The authority of a precedent is directly proportional to the level of the court that established it. Decisions from courts of appeal are generally more persuasive than those from trial courts, but less authoritative than those from supreme courts. This hierarchical structure ensures that the most carefully considered and authoritative decisions guide the development of law.
Ratio Decidendi vs. Obiter Dicta: Identifying the Binding Elements.
The ratio decidendi is the central legal principle upon which a court’s decision rests. It is the binding element of a precedent, representing the essential reasoning that the court applied to the facts of the case. Identifying the ratio is a crucial skill for lawyers and judges, as it determines how the precedent should be applied in future cases. It is not simply the outcome of the case, but the underlying legal rationale that led to that outcome. Obiter dicta, on the other hand, are statements made by the court that are not essential to the decision. These statements may be interesting or persuasive, but they are not binding on future courts. Obiter dicta can include hypothetical scenarios, discussions of related legal issues, or expressions of opinion that go beyond the specific facts of the case. While not binding, obiter dicta can sometimes influence future legal arguments or judicial decisions. Distinguishing between the ratio and obiter dicta requires careful analysis of the court’s judgment. One approach is to ask whether the statement was necessary for the court to reach its decision. If the court could have reached the same conclusion without making the statement, it is likely to be obiter dicta. Another approach is to consider the level of generality of the statement. The ratio is typically stated at a higher level of generality than obiter dicta, as it is intended to apply to a broader range of cases. The process of identifying the ratio is not always straightforward, and different individuals may interpret a judgment differently. This can lead to disputes about the scope and application of a precedent. In such cases, courts may need to revisit the original judgment to clarify its meaning and determine the precise ratio decidendi.
The Application of Stare Decisis in Common Law System
Stare decisis, meaning “to stand by things decided,” is the principle that courts should follow precedents set by previous decisions. This principle is fundamental to the stability and predictability of common law systems. It promotes fairness and consistency by ensuring that similar cases are treated alike. Stare decisis also enhances efficiency, as courts can rely on existing precedents rather than having to re-litigate settled legal issues. The application of stare decisis is not absolute. Courts have some flexibility to depart from precedent in certain circumstances. For example, a court may distinguish a case from a precedent if the facts are significantly different. This allows courts to adapt the law to new situations while still respecting the underlying principles of stare decisis. Courts can avoid applying precedent through factual differences. The strength of stare decisis can vary depending on the court and the jurisdiction. Higher courts generally have greater authority to overrule their own precedents than lower courts. In some jurisdictions, courts are more willing to depart from precedent than in others. The specific rules governing stare decisis are typically established by constitutional provisions, statutes, or judicial decisions. Stare decisis plays a vital role in the evolution of common law. While it promotes stability, it also allows for the gradual development of legal principles over time. As new cases arise and societal values change, courts can refine and adapt existing precedents to meet the needs of contemporary society.
Distinguishing Cases: Avoiding Precedent Through Factual Differences
Distinguishing a case is a method by which a court avoids applying a seemingly binding precedent by demonstrating that the facts of the present case are sufficiently different from those of the precedent case. This allows the court to reach a different outcome without directly overruling the precedent. Distinguishing cases is a crucial tool for adapting the law to new situations and preventing injustice. The process of distinguishing involves a careful comparison of the facts of the two cases. The court must identify material differences that justify a different legal outcome. These differences may relate to the parties involved, the events that occurred, or the legal issues presented. The differences must be significant enough to warrant a departure from the precedent. There are several common grounds for distinguishing cases. One is that the facts of the present case are more complex or nuanced than those of the precedent case. Another is that the social or economic context has changed since the precedent was decided, making its application inappropriate. A third is that the precedent was based on a misunderstanding of the law or the facts. Distinguishing cases is not always easy, and it can be controversial. Critics argue that it allows courts to selectively apply precedents based on their own policy preferences. However, proponents argue that it is a necessary tool for ensuring that the law remains flexible and responsive to changing circumstances.
Overruling Precedent: When and How Higher Courts Can Change the Law
Overruling a precedent is the act of a higher court declaring that a prior decision is no longer good law. This is a significant power that should be exercised with caution, as it disrupts the stability and predictability of the legal system. However, overruling is sometimes necessary to correct errors, adapt to changing social conditions, or promote justice. Higher courts generally have the authority to overrule their own precedents, as well as the precedents of lower courts within their jurisdiction. However, the power to overrule is not unlimited. Courts typically require a strong justification for departing from precedent, such as that the prior decision was clearly wrong, that it has become unworkable, or that it is no longer consistent with contemporary values. The process of overruling a precedent typically involves a detailed analysis of the prior decision, the legal principles involved, and the potential consequences of overruling. The court may consider arguments from the parties, as well as from interested third parties. The decision to overrule is typically made by a majority vote of the court. Overruling a precedent can have a significant impact on the legal system. It can change the rules governing a particular area of law, affect the rights and obligations of individuals and businesses, and create uncertainty about the future. For these reasons, courts are generally reluctant to overrule precedents unless there is a compelling reason to do so.
The Role of Persuasive Authority: Judgments from Other Jurisdictions Persuasive authority refers to legal sources that are not binding on a court but may be considered for their reasoning and analysis. Judgments from other jurisdictions, such as foreign courts or courts in different states or provinces, are a primary example of persuasive authority. While these judgments do not compel a court to reach a particular decision, they can influence its thinking and provide support for its conclusions. The weight given to persuasive authority depends on several factors, including the reputation of the court that issued the judgment, the quality of the reasoning, and the similarity of the legal systems and social conditions. Judgments from courts in jurisdictions with similar legal traditions and values are generally more persuasive than those from jurisdictions with very different systems. Persuasive authority can be particularly useful in cases involving novel legal issues or areas of law where there is limited binding precedent. Courts may look to other jurisdictions for guidance on how to resolve these issues and adapt the law to new circumstances. Persuasive authority can also be helpful in interpreting ambiguous statutes or constitutional provisions. While persuasive authority can be a valuable tool, it is important to remember that it is not binding. Courts must ultimately make their own decisions based on the applicable law and the facts of the case. Persuasive authority should be considered as one factor among many, rather than as a substitute for independent legal analysis.
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Doctrine of Precedent
The doctrine of precedent offers several advantages. It promotes consistency and predictability in the application of law, ensuring that similar cases are treated alike. This enhances fairness and reduces the risk of arbitrary or biased decisions. Precedent also increases efficiency by allowing courts to rely on existing legal principles rather than having to re-litigate settled issues. Additionally, it fosters stability by providing a framework for the gradual development of law over time. However, the doctrine of precedent also has disadvantages. It can make the law rigid and inflexible, making it difficult to adapt to changing social conditions or correct errors. Precedent can also perpetuate unjust or discriminatory practices if the original decision was flawed. Furthermore, the process of identifying and applying precedents can be complex and time-consuming, leading to uncertainty and litigation. Balancing the advantages and disadvantages of precedent requires careful judgment. Courts must strive to maintain stability and consistency while also remaining open to new ideas and perspectives. The doctrine of precedent is a valuable tool for ensuring justice and order, but it should not be applied blindly or without regard to the potential consequences. In conclusion, the doctrine of precedent is a fundamental principle of common law systems that shapes how past judgments influence present cases. It offers a framework for ensuring consistency, predictability, and efficiency in the legal system. While the doctrine has its limitations, its benefits outweigh its drawbacks, making it a cornerstone of legal jurisprudence. The careful application and interpretation of precedent are essential for maintaining a fair and just legal system.
Case laws
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) A seminal example of how precedents shape constitutional law in India is the Supreme Court’s decision in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). This landmark case addressed the issue of the amendment power and the basic structure doctrine, which asserts that certain fundamental principles of the Constitution cannot be altered by amendments (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973). The case involved a challenge to the Constitution’s 24th Amendment, which aimed to expand the scope of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in a historic ruling, upheld the validity of the amendment but established that Parliament could not alter the Constitution’s basic structure. This decision set a significant precedent, establishing the basic structure doctrine as a fundamental principle of Indian constitutional law and influencing subsequent judicial decisions and constitutional amendments.
the Supreme Court (SC) in the case of Experion Developers Pvt Ltd v. Himanshu Dewan and Sonali Dewan, observed that an order dismissing an appeal without any reasons being recorded cannot be treated as a binding precedent.
The State of Orissa v. Mamata Patnaik (1978) case highlighted the significance of following precedent. The Supreme Court emphasised that adherence to established legal principles ensures consistency in the application of law. Another landmark is the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) case, where the court reaffirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. The ruling built on principles established in earlier judgments, showcasing the doctrine’s role in upholding rights.
In the case of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, it was held that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of religious texts is a binding precedent. The apex court held after finding out what were the important rights of Muslim divorced women which were not there properly in the original texts or any other material. Such an interpretation of religious texts by an earlier Constitutional Bench done by the apex court was held to be binding in Danial Latifi v. Union of India. Further, it was not open to the court for re-examining the position any longer because already a Constitution of the Supreme Court had accordingly declared the law after considering the Suras 241-242 of Chapter II of the holy book of Quran and also the other relevant material available. Moreover, the court even elaborated on the fact that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights and Divorce) Act, 1986 which actually codifies the law as stated in the Shah Bano’s case. The fundamental purpose of the act is to allow the Muslim husband so that he can retain his freedom of avoiding payment for maintenance to his erstwhile wife after the divorce and also after the period of iddat. The apex’s court decision in cases of Shah Bano case and Danail Latifi case upholds the importance of precedent as well as the law which has been declared by the Supreme Court by way of interpretation of the religious texts, especially when there are several interpretations available in order to explain the meaning of the texts.
In the case of Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Appanrao wherein the apex court affirmed the decision stated in Shenoy & Co. case and accordingly stated merely because of the principles of Res Judicata has not been considered in any particular case, still, it could be relevant ground for reconsideration of the Judgement by the larger bench of the Supreme Court. In the case of ICICI Bank v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay it was stated that the decision given by the apex court must be read in accordance with the context of the statutory provisions which have been interpreted by the competent court. It has been stated that no judgment can be read if it’s a statute. Moreover, the law cannot afford to be always static in nature. Therefore, based on the relevant principles the Judges must apply intelligent techniques in order to use the precedents. Moreover, in the Pandurang Kalu Patil v. State of Maharashtra the supreme court had even stated that decisions of the High court will be binding until and unless the Supreme Court overrules them.
In the case of Paramjit Kaur v. The State of Punjab went a step forward in order to expand the powers laid down under Article 141 of the Constitution. In order to enquire about the extrajudicial killings in the State of Punjab, the Supreme Court issued direction to the National Human Rights Commission. Therefore, the jurisdiction of such a Commission came into question in reference to the statutory limitations and obligations of the respective Commission. It was duly held by the apex court that the Supreme Court referred to the matter when referred to the commission when made in exercise of the plentitude of its appropriate jurisdiction. The apex court accordingly held that by its orders and directions it can confer jurisdiction on a particular body beyond the purview of the Jurisdiction.
In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, the accused was alleged of the offence of brutal gang rape of a social worker. The three-bench judge of the Supreme Court laid down relevant guidelines and norms as there was no enacted law related to effective enforcement of the basic human rights gender equality and also guarantee against sexual harassment. The court observed that norms and guidelines should be followed in workplaces in accordance with Article 141 of the Constitution. Further, the court has stated that the guidelines were declared under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution and its binding and enforceable in law, and suitable legislation accordingly to occupy the field.
