What are Precedents and Precedents as a Source of Law | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• Definition of Precedent: A precedent refers to a legal principle established in a court decision, particularly in Supreme Court judgments. This principle must be adhered to not only by the deciding court but also by lower courts. Judges are required to carefully consider past decisions when handling current cases, using them as a guide for present and future rulings.
• Role of Judicial Precedents: Judicial precedents serve as a crucial foundation for the legal system, offering a framework for consistent decision-making and the interpretation of law.
• Importance of Precedents: By relying on precedents, judges ensure uniformity and predictability in legal outcomes, fostering stability and fairness in the judicial system.
• Application in Legal Practice: Lawyers often use precedents to argue their cases, citing relevant decisions to support their legal positions and interpretations.

Doctrine of Precedent

• The doctrine of precedent refers to the idea that past court decisions should guide present and future judicial rulings to ensure clarity, consistency, and reliability in the law.
• Precedents are legal principles established in previous court judgments that serve as authoritative guidelines for resolving similar legal issues in subsequent cases.
• When a court settles a legal issue, it becomes a precedent, known as stare decisis, which means that similar cases should be decided in a manner consistent with past decisions.
• Stare decisis helps in saving time, ensuring uniformity in decisions, and maintaining consistency in the application of the law.
• Judges rely on precedents to make informed decisions by examining how previous cases with similar facts were resolved.

Importance of Precedent

• Precedents provide certainty and consistency in judicial decisions, facilitating the organic development of the law and ensuring predictability for individuals in legal matters.
• Clear enunciation of legal principles in court decisions is essential for establishing a reliable framework for interpreting and applying the law.

Application of Precedent

• When applying a precedent to a new case, it is crucial to understand the underlying legal principles rather than focusing on isolated words or phrases from the previous judgment.
• Judges consider the reasoning behind a decision to determine the true principle established by the precedent.
• Proper interpretation and application of precedents help in maintaining the integrity of the legal system and ensuring justice in subsequent cases.

Precedent as a Source of Law

• Judicial precedents play a crucial role as a significant source of law, holding substantial authority universally.
• In the realm of common law systems, judicial precedents are particularly vital, shaping the evolution of the legal framework.
• According to legal scholars like Salmond, the common law of England has been largely fashioned by the decisions of English judges over time.
• Blackstone emphasizes the importance of respecting past precedents to maintain consistency and stability in the administration of justice.
• Precedents not only serve as evidence of laws but also function as sources of law, influencing judicial reasoning and decision-making.
• It is crucial to note that decisions made without adherence to legal principles cannot set valuable precedents.
• Contrary views, such as those expressed by Stobbes and Savigny, argue that precedents are merely reflections of customary law, not sources of law per se.
• Stobbes contends that judicial precedent, being a practice, cannot inherently be considered a direct source of law.
• Overall, precedents are seen as constitutive rather than propagative, meaning they establish legal principles without altering existing laws.

Binding Effect of Precedent

• Article 141 of the Constitution establishes that decisions made by the Supreme Court are binding on all courts within India.
• This means that rulings by the Supreme Court must be followed by lower courts, including High Courts, without overlooking them due to procedural errors.
• Judges are required to carefully consider past Supreme Court decisions as guiding principles for current and future cases.
• The Supreme Court's decisions are binding on the State and its officials, irrespective of whether the parties involved were directly part of the original case.
• The Supreme Court has the authority to overturn its previous decisions, either explicitly or implicitly, especially in constitutional matters that are deemed flawed.

Review and Departure from Precedent

• In the case of Sajjan Singh v. the State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court highlighted its power to review and depart from earlier decisions, particularly in matters impacting fundamental rights.
• The doctrine of stare decisis, which normally upholds the binding nature of judgments, may be set aside in cases where public welfare or constitutional principles are at stake.
• The Supreme Court may reevaluate past rulings if errors or detrimental effects on the public interest are identified, even after a significant period has passed.
• In situations of conflicting decisions within the Supreme Court, decisions by larger Benches typically take precedence over those by smaller Benches, unless justified otherwise.

Precedential Value of Decisions

• The court, in State of M.P v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, emphasized the importance of not relying on decisions without assessing how they align with the specifics of the current case.
• The Supreme Court may revisit its previous rulings if crucial aspects were overlooked, essential legal provisions were not considered, or if there were clear errors in the decision.

Kinds of Precedents

Authoritative Precedents

• Absolute Precedents are binding on judges regardless of their personal views.
• Conditional Precedents can be disregarded in exceptional circumstances.

Persuasive Precedents

• Judges consider persuasive precedents but are not strictly bound by them.
• These precedents guide judges in decision-making without legal enforcement.

Original Precedents

• Original precedents are established when no prior rulings exist.
• They are crucial in shaping new legal principles.

Declaratory Precedents

Declaratory Precedents

• Declaratory precedents affirm existing laws.
• Similar to original precedents, they serve as a valuable legal source.

Conclusion

• Precedents serve as guiding lights for all courts, instilling confidence in legal decisions and aiding lower court judges in the accurate application of the law. Judges may often rely on precedents to justify their rulings, as these decisions offer clarity and consistency in legal interpretation. While statutes enacted by legislatures establish the broad principles to be applied in resolving disputes, it is ultimately the courts that interpret and apply these principles in specific cases.
• The principle of precedents is built upon previous court rulings, which are typically binding on lower courts when the facts and issues at hand are similar or identical. However, while the binding nature of precedents ensures stability and predictability in the law, it may also hinder its evolution to adapt to societal changes. Thus, courts must strike a delicate balance between upholding legal certainty and fostering the development and improvement of the law in line with evolving societal needs and values.