All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  According to Mohammedan jurisprudence, the ho... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
According to Mohammedan jurisprudence, the holy Quran is regarded as important source of law but problems which are not solved by a Quranic law are to be solved by other agencies. The other agencies include precedent also. Hence Mohammedan jurisprudence ,
  • a)
    Recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent
  • b)
    Partially recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent
  • c)
    Recognize only the Doctrine of Judicial Preceden
  • d)
    Does not recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
According to Mohammedan jurisprudence, the holy Quran is regarded as i...
A precedent is a statement made of the law by a Judge in deciding a case. The doctrine states that within the hierarchy of the English courts a decision by a superior court will be binding on inferior courts. If there is a precedent set by an inferior court, a judge does not have to follow it, but may consider it.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
According to Mohammedan jurisprudence, the holy Quran is regarded as i...
Explanation:

Recognition of the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent in Mohammedan Jurisprudence:
In Mohammedan jurisprudence, the holy Quran is considered as an important source of law. However, if a problem is not solved by a Quranic law, other agencies are used to find a solution. These other agencies include precedent.

Partial Recognition:
Therefore, Mohammedan jurisprudence partially recognizes the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent. While the Quran takes precedence as a primary source of law, precedent is also considered in cases where Quranic law does not provide a clear solution.

Role of Precedent:
Precedent, in this context, refers to past judicial decisions that serve as a guide for current cases. These decisions are not binding in the same way as in common law systems, but they are still considered important in the absence of specific Quranic laws.

Application in Practice:
Judges in Mohammedan jurisprudence may look to past cases and rulings to help inform their decisions in situations where Quranic law is not explicit. This allows for a degree of flexibility and adaptability in the legal system while still maintaining the Quran as the ultimate authority.
Therefore, Mohammedan jurisprudence recognizes the importance of precedent as a supplementary source of law, alongside the Quranic teachings.
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Paragraph:This is not pedantic hair-splitting. On the contrary, it is deeply important, because respect for precedent is at the bedrock of our judicial system, and of the rule of law. Ordinarily, prior judgments of the Supreme Court are binding, and meant to be followed: this is what provides the system the stability and continuity that differentiates the rule of law from the rule of judges. Now if a later bench of the Court wants to go against binding precedent, a series of groundrules exist to ensure that this can only happen after careful consideration and reflection, and in judicial proceedings where both sides can put their case. These ground rules stipulate, for example, that if a smaller bench feels that the binding decision of a previous, larger bench is incorrect, it “refers” the case to a larger bench to consider; and in general, this referral takes place incrementally (for example, from two judges to three, three to five etc. – although there have, of course, been exceptions). The reason for this – to reiterate – is that respect for precedent requires, logically, that settled law be disturbed only when there are weighty reasons for doing so.However, there is something more concerning here. If the nine-judge bench is no longer restricting itself to the reference questions – butintends to hear these petitions as well – then it at least potentially follows that the Sabarimala petitions – out of which the review order arose – will also now be the subject matter of the hearing. This would be truly extraordinary: a final judgment of the Court (five judges) would be effectively re-heard by a nine-judge bench, against all existing norms and conventions. Recall that no judgment has yet doubted the correctness of the original Sabarimala decision, or made a reference to have it reconsidered. In other words, this “second round” with a larger bench is taking place purely by virtue of the Chief Justice exercising his administrative fiat It should be obvious by now that this is no longer about whether the original judgment in Sabarimala was right or wrong. People can – and do – have different views about that, and it would be entirely open to later benches to reconsider it, following proper procedures. But what is at stake here is something deeper: it is whether precedent continues to have any meaning at the Supreme Court, or whether what we are witnessing is a gradual metamorphosis of the Supreme Court of India into the Supreme Chief Justice of India (a point I have written about befor e). Because what has happened here is that a number crucial issues that required judicial consideration in a proper way (whether there is a conflict between Shirur Mutt and Durgah, requiring resolution; whether the referred questions actually affect the pending cases; and whether Sabarimala ought to be reconsidere d) have been implicitly decided through the constitution of a nine-judge bench, by administrative fiat.Q. What is the context under which the author differentiates between rule of law and rule of judges?

Paragraph:This is not pedantic hair-splitting. On the contrary, it is deeply important, because respect for precedent is at the bedrock of our judicial system, and of the rule of law. Ordinarily, prior judgments of the Supreme Court are binding, and meant to be followed: this is what provides the system the stability and continuity that differentiates the rule of law from the rule of judges. Now if a later bench of the Court wants to go against binding precedent, a series of groundrules exist to ensure that this can only happen after careful consideration and reflection, and in judicial proceedings where both sides can put their case. These ground rules stipulate, for example, that if a smaller bench feels that the binding decision of a previous, larger bench is incorrect, it “refers” the case to a larger bench to consider; and in general, this referral takes place incrementally (for example, from two judges to three, three to five etc. – although there have, of course, been exceptions). The reason for this – to reiterate – is that respect for precedent requires, logically, that settled law be disturbed only when there are weighty reasons for doing so.However, there is something more concerning here. If the nine-judge bench is no longer restricting itself to the reference questions – butintends to hear these petitions as well – then it at least potentially follows that the Sabarimala petitions – out of which the review order arose – will also now be the subject matter of the hearing. This would be truly extraordinary: a final judgment of the Court (five judges) would be effectively re-heard by a nine-judge bench, against all existing norms and conventions. Recall that no judgment has yet doubted the correctness of the original Sabarimala decision, or made a reference to have it reconsidered. In other words, this “second round” with a larger bench is taking place purely by virtue of the Chief Justice exercising his administrative fiat It should be obvious by now that this is no longer about whether the original judgment in Sabarimala was right or wrong. People can – and do – have different views about that, and it would be entirely open to later benches to reconsider it, following proper procedures. But what is at stake here is something deeper: it is whether precedent continues to have any meaning at the Supreme Court, or whether what we are witnessing is a gradual metamorphosis of the Supreme Court of India into the Supreme Chief Justice of India (a point I have written about befor e). Because what has happened here is that a number crucial issues that required judicial consideration in a proper way (whether there is a conflict between Shirur Mutt and Durgah, requiring resolution; whether the referred questions actually affect the pending cases; and whether Sabarimala ought to be reconsidere d) have been implicitly decided through the constitution of a nine-judge bench, by administrative fiat.Q. Why is the review mechanism of supreme court incremental in nature?

Typically, when we imagine a rule or constraint as binding, we think of it as unavoidable. Binding constraints are those we suppose to be absolute and incapable of being overridden by other considerations. If a precedent is binding, then a court bound by it simply must follow it. Period.There is no reason, however, why even a binding authority should be understood in this way. Although a binding authority creates an obligation on the part of the bound court to use that authority, such an obligation need not be absolute. In life, genuine obligations can be overridden by even stronger ones. I am obliged to keep my promises, so I must keep my lunch date with you even if I no longer find you interesting. But if a close relative has fallen ill, it is understood that my obligation is overridden by the even stronger one to attend to ailing relatives. Similarly, a police officer refrains from giving a speeding ticket to the man who is rushing his pregnant wife to the hospital. Indeed, rights operate in the same way.Just as obligations can be obligatory without being absolutely so, so too can authorities be authoritative without being absolutely authoritative. Most authorities are therefore not binding or controlling in the absolute sense, and treating a source as authoritative or even mandatory does not entail following it come what may. A judge of the District Court is bound by the decisions of the High Court, but he is also bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and if in some case the relevant High Court precedent turns out to dictate one outcome while the relevant Supreme Court case indicates another, the obligation to follow the Supreme Court will override the obligation to follow the High Court.Similarly, the best understanding of stare decisis is that a subsequent court is bound to follow the earlier decisions of the same court, but this too is not an absolute obligation. The Supreme Court can overturn its own precedents when there is a “special justification”, not that it believes that the previous Court was mistaken. Something more is required, something “special,” but it is possible to overrule. The earlier case is a binding precedent, but here, unlike in the situation involving vertical precedent, where we understand binding to mean non overridable by any other consideration, the binding force of stare decisis is real but decidedly non absolute.Q. According to the author, what is the general impression of a binding precedent?

Typically, when we imagine a rule or constraint as binding, we think of it as unavoidable. Binding constraints are those we suppose to be absolute and incapable of being overridden by other considerations. If a precedent is binding, then a court bound by it simply must follow it. Period.There is no reason, however, why even a binding authority should be understood in this way. Although a binding authority creates an obligation on the part of the bound court to use that authority, such an obligation need not be absolute. In life, genuine obligations can be overridden by even stronger ones. I am obliged to keep my promises, so I must keep my lunch date with you even if I no longer find you interesting. But if a close relative has fallen ill, it is understood that my obligation is overridden by the even stronger one to attend to ailing relatives. Similarly, a police officer refrains from giving a speeding ticket to the man who is rushing his pregnant wife to the hospital. Indeed, rights operate in the same way.Just as obligations can be obligatory without being absolutely so, so too can authorities be authoritative without being absolutely authoritative. Most authorities are therefore not binding or controlling in the absolute sense, and treating a source as authoritative or even mandatory does not entail following it come what may. A judge of the District Court is bound by the decisions of the High Court, but he is also bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and if in some case the relevant High Court precedent turns out to dictate one outcome while the relevant Supreme Court case indicates another, the obligation to follow the Supreme Court will override the obligation to follow the High Court.Similarly, the best understanding of stare decisis is that a subsequent court is bound to follow the earlier decisions of the same court, but this too is not an absolute obligation. The Supreme Court can overturn its own precedents when there is a “special justification”, not that it believes that the previous Court was mistaken. Something more is required, something “special,” but it is possible to overrule. The earlier case is a binding precedent, but here, unlike in the situation involving vertical precedent, where we understand binding to mean non overridable by any other consideration, the binding force of stare decisis is real but decidedly non absolute.Q. In which of the following situations is the obligation likely to be overruled, based on the author’s reasoning?

Law characteristically faces backward. Unlike most forms of policymaking, which are concerned with a proposed policy’s future consequences, legal decision-making is preoccupied with looking over its shoulder. Frequently in law, but less so elsewhere, it is not enough that a decision produces desirable results in the future; the decision must also follow from or at least be consistent with previous decisions on similar questions. By ordinarily requiring that legal decisions follow precedent, the law is committed to the view that it is often better for a decision to accord with precedent than to be right, and that it is frequently more important for a decision to be consistent with precedent than to have the best consequences.The obligation to follow precedent arises in the legal system in two different ways. One we can call vertical precedent. Lower courts are normally expected to obey the previous decisions of higher courts within their jurisdiction, and this relationship of lower to higher in the “chain of command” is usefully understood as vertical. Federal district courts are obliged to follow the precedents of the courts of appeals of their circuit, and the courts of appeals are obliged to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court. The same holds true in state systems, which typically have a similar structure and impose equivalent obligations. Indeed, we refer to courts as higher and lower precisely because higher courts exercise authority over lower ones, an authority manifested principally in the obligation of lower courts to treat the decisions of higher courts as binding upon them.Courts are also, although less obviously and sometimes more controversially, expected to follow their own earlier decisions – horizontal precedent, because the obligation is between some court now and the same court in the past. The earlier decision is superior not because it comes from a higher court; rather, the earlier decision becomes superior just because it is earlier. This obligation of a court to follow its own previous decisions is typically known as stare decisis.Q. Which of the following will help in evaluating the argument of the author?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

According to Mohammedan jurisprudence, the holy Quran is regarded as important source of law but problems which are not solved by a Quranic law are to be solved by other agencies. The other agencies include precedent also. Hence Mohammedan jurisprudence ,a)Recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedentb)Partially recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedentc)Recognize only the Doctrine of Judicial Precedend)Does not recognize the Doctrine of Judicial PrecedentCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
According to Mohammedan jurisprudence, the holy Quran is regarded as important source of law but problems which are not solved by a Quranic law are to be solved by other agencies. The other agencies include precedent also. Hence Mohammedan jurisprudence ,a)Recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedentb)Partially recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedentc)Recognize only the Doctrine of Judicial Precedend)Does not recognize the Doctrine of Judicial PrecedentCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about According to Mohammedan jurisprudence, the holy Quran is regarded as important source of law but problems which are not solved by a Quranic law are to be solved by other agencies. The other agencies include precedent also. Hence Mohammedan jurisprudence ,a)Recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedentb)Partially recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedentc)Recognize only the Doctrine of Judicial Precedend)Does not recognize the Doctrine of Judicial PrecedentCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for According to Mohammedan jurisprudence, the holy Quran is regarded as important source of law but problems which are not solved by a Quranic law are to be solved by other agencies. The other agencies include precedent also. Hence Mohammedan jurisprudence ,a)Recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedentb)Partially recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedentc)Recognize only the Doctrine of Judicial Precedend)Does not recognize the Doctrine of Judicial PrecedentCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for According to Mohammedan jurisprudence, the holy Quran is regarded as important source of law but problems which are not solved by a Quranic law are to be solved by other agencies. The other agencies include precedent also. Hence Mohammedan jurisprudence ,a)Recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedentb)Partially recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedentc)Recognize only the Doctrine of Judicial Precedend)Does not recognize the Doctrine of Judicial PrecedentCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of According to Mohammedan jurisprudence, the holy Quran is regarded as important source of law but problems which are not solved by a Quranic law are to be solved by other agencies. The other agencies include precedent also. Hence Mohammedan jurisprudence ,a)Recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedentb)Partially recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedentc)Recognize only the Doctrine of Judicial Precedend)Does not recognize the Doctrine of Judicial PrecedentCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of According to Mohammedan jurisprudence, the holy Quran is regarded as important source of law but problems which are not solved by a Quranic law are to be solved by other agencies. The other agencies include precedent also. Hence Mohammedan jurisprudence ,a)Recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedentb)Partially recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedentc)Recognize only the Doctrine of Judicial Precedend)Does not recognize the Doctrine of Judicial PrecedentCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for According to Mohammedan jurisprudence, the holy Quran is regarded as important source of law but problems which are not solved by a Quranic law are to be solved by other agencies. The other agencies include precedent also. Hence Mohammedan jurisprudence ,a)Recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedentb)Partially recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedentc)Recognize only the Doctrine of Judicial Precedend)Does not recognize the Doctrine of Judicial PrecedentCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of According to Mohammedan jurisprudence, the holy Quran is regarded as important source of law but problems which are not solved by a Quranic law are to be solved by other agencies. The other agencies include precedent also. Hence Mohammedan jurisprudence ,a)Recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedentb)Partially recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedentc)Recognize only the Doctrine of Judicial Precedend)Does not recognize the Doctrine of Judicial PrecedentCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice According to Mohammedan jurisprudence, the holy Quran is regarded as important source of law but problems which are not solved by a Quranic law are to be solved by other agencies. The other agencies include precedent also. Hence Mohammedan jurisprudence ,a)Recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedentb)Partially recognize the Doctrine of Judicial Precedentc)Recognize only the Doctrine of Judicial Precedend)Does not recognize the Doctrine of Judicial PrecedentCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup