1

Summary of papers written by Judicial

Officers on the subject:

LAWOFPRECEDENT
Introduction:

A precedent isastatement oflawfoundinthe

decision of a superior Court, which decision has to be

followed by that court and by the courts inferior to it.

Precedentisapreviousdecisionuponwhichthejudgeshave

tofollowthepastdecisionscarefullyinthecasesbeforethem

asaguideforallpresentorfuturedecisions.

In other words, Judicial Precedent means a

judgmentofaCourtoflawcitedasanauthorityfordeciding

asimilarsetoffacts,acasewhichservesasauthorityforthe

legalprincipleembodiedinitsdecision.Ajudicialprecedent

isadecisionoftheCourtusedasasourceforfuturedecision

making.

Meaning:

A precedent is a statement of law found in

decisionofaSuperiorCourt.Thoughlawmakingisthework

ofthelegislature,Judgesmakelawthroughtheprecedent.
 2

Inferiorcourtsmustfollowsuchlaws.Decisionsbasedona

questionoflawareprecedents.Decisionsbasedonquestion

offactsarenotprecedents.Judgesmustfollowthebinding

decisionsofSuperiororthesamecourt.Followingprevious

bindingdecisionsbringsuniformityindecisionmaking,not

following would result in confusion. It is well settled that

Article141oftheConstitutionempowerstheSupremeCourt

todeclarethelawandnottoenactthelaw,whichessentially

isthefunctionofthelegislature.Todeclarethelawmeansto

interpretthelaw.Thisinterpretationoflawisbindingonall

theCourtsinIndia.Thisiscalledasprecedent.

DefinitionofPrecedent:

Thetermprecedentisnotdefinedanywhere.In

generalEnglishitmeans,Apreviousinstanceorcasewhich

is, or may be taken as an example of rule for subsequent

cases,orbywhichsomesimilaractorcircumstancesmaybe

supportedorjustified.
 3

Accordingtosalmond:

In loose sense it includes merely reported case

lawwhichmaybecitedandfollowedbycourts.

Instrictsense,thatcaselawwhichnotonlyhas

greatbindingauthoritybutmustalsobefollowed.

Inallprecedentsareauthorityofpastdecisions

forfuturecases.Itmustbereported,citedandfollowedby

courts.

Object:

Themainobjectofdoctrineofprecedentisthat

thelawofthelandshouldbeclear,certain&consistentso

that the Courts shall follow it without any hesitation. In

UnionofIndiaVs.RaghubirSingh(AIR1989SC1933)it

hasbeenheld

Thedoctrineofbindingprecedenthas

the merit of promoting a certainty and

consistencyinjudicialdecisions,andenablesan

organic development of the law, besides

providingassurancetotheindividualastothe

consequence of transactions forming part of

 4

daily affairs. And, therefore, the need for a

clear and consistent enunciation of legal

principleinthedecisionsofaCourt.

OriginofPrecedent:
Precedent originates from the doctrine of stare

decisis. Stare decisis means to abide by the decisions. The

doctrine of stare decisis bringscertainty andconformity to

thedecisionsofthecourtandtolaw.

Staredecisis:
Themaximexplainsthedoctrineofstaredecisis.

When court settles an issue, a conflict or a controversy

between parties it becomes the law on those issues and

conflicts. Such a decision is a precedent. A precedent is a

statementoflawfoundindecisionofthesuperiorcourt.Such

decisions are binding to that court and the inferior courts

havetofollow.Thecasesbasedonsimilarsetoffactsdecided

byacourtmayariseinanyfuturecase.Followingprevious

decisionsinsimilarfuturecases,thecourtmaysavetimeand

avoid conflicting decisions, bringing uniformity tolaw.The

courtsettlesaquestionoflaworoffact,itisbesttostandby
 5

thatdecisionwhileadjudicatingsimilarcasesinthefuture.

Before deciding a case, the Judges look into previously

decided cases of similar nature by their own court or by

superiorcourts.Theyshallapplythemonthefactsorcase

beforethemanddecideaccordingly.

InIndianlegalsystem,thejudgestakeguidance

from previousdecisionson the point,andrelyuponthem.

ThedecisionsofApexCourt andHighcourtsare compiled

andpublishedinreports.Thesereportsareconsideredtobe

valuablefromthelegalliteratureperspective.Thosedecisions

are very efficient in deciding cases of subsequent cases of

similar nature. They are called as Judicial Precedents. A

decisionisanauthorityforwhatitdecides.

Theratiointhedecisionisitsessence.Thereason

and principles on which a court decides a case forms a

precedent. A Judicial decision has a binding force for

subsequent cases. However, the whole Judgment is not

bindinginfuturecases.

ommissionerofIncomeTaxvs
Inthecaseof C

M/sSunEngineeringWorksPrivateLimitedAIR1993,SC

43, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, while applying the
 6

decision to a later cases, the court must carefully try to

ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision of the

SupremeCourtandnottopickoutwordsorsentencesfromthe

Judgment divorced from the context of question under

considerationbythecourttosupporttheirreasoning.

Itisveryclearthat,onlythosestatementsinan

earlier decision which may be said to constitute the ratio

decidendiofthatcasearebinding.Statementswhicharenot

essentialornecessaryfordecidingthelatercases,suchnon

authoritativestatementsarecalledasobiterdicta.

RatioDecidendi:

Ratiodecidendimeansthereasonortheprinciple

uponwhichthecasehasbeendecidedbythehigherCourts

andonlythismuchisbindingonthesubordinatecourtswhile

applying the earlier decision. The ratio decidendi can be

ascertained by an analysis of facts. In the case Krishna

Kumarvs.UnionofIndiaandothers,(
1990)4SCC207
it

hasbeenobservedthehon'blesupremecourtthat:

Inotherwords,theenunciationofthereason

or principle upon which a question before a

 7

court has been decided is alone binding as a

precedent.Theratiodecidendiistheunderlying

principle, namely, the general reasons or the

general grounds upon which the decision is

basedonthetestorabstractfromthespecific

peculiaritiesoftheparticularcasewhichgives

risetothedecision.Theratiodecidendihasto

beascertainedbyananalysisofthefactsofthe

caseandtheprocessofreasoninginvolvingthe

majorpremiseconsistingofapreexistingrule

oflaw,eitherstatutoryorjudgemade,anda

minorpremiseconsistingofthematerialfacts

ofthecaseunderimmediateconsideration.Ifit

isnotclear,itisnotthedutyofthecourtto

spellitoutwithdifficultyinordertobebound

byit.

ObiterDicta:

ObiterDictameansallthatissaidbythecourtby

the way or the statement of law which go beyond the

requirementsoftheparticularcaseandwhichlaiddownrule
 8

i.e. irrelevant or unnecessary for the purpose in hand are

calledobiterdicta.Thesedictahavetheforceofpersuasive

precedentsonly.Thejudgesarenotboundtofollowthem.

However, obiter dictum of Their Lordships of the

hon'bleSupremeCourtisentitledtohighestrespectandis

bindingonalltheCourtsofthecountry.Itisobservedincase

ofMohandasIssardasandothersVs.A.N.Sattanathan&

Others,A.I.R.1995(Bom.)113that:

the court in India should accept as an

authoritativepronouncementontheparticular

aspectoflawandtreatthatpronouncementas

binding.TheSupremecourthasnowtakenthe

placeofprivycouncilandwewouldliketosay

unhesitatingly that we must show the same

respect for the 'obiter dicta' of the Supreme

Court that we did for those of privy council.

The Supreme Court is the highest judicial

tribunal in India today and it is as much

necessary as in the interest of judicial

uniformity and judicial discipline that all the

 9

HighCourtsmustacceptasbindingthe'obiter

dicta'oftheSupremeCourtinthesamespirit

astheHighCourtsacceptedthe'obiterdicta'of

theprivycouncil.

SubSilentio:

A decision is sub silentio if an important issue

ignoredorwasnotarguedbycounsel.That point orissue

mayturnthedecisionofthecourt.Suchdecisionisnotan

authority on the point which is not fully argued is sub

silentio.

WhenPrecedentsceasetoapply:

There are three main criteria to oversight the

previousprecedentsasfollows;

I]Overruling

II]Reversing

III]Distinguishing
 10

I]Overruling:

Thisiswhereacourthigherinthehierarchy

departs from a decision made in a lower court. Then the

previousdecisionisnolongerbinding.

II]Reversing:

Thisis whereahighercourtdepartsfrom

thedecisionofthelowercourtonappeal.

III]Distinguishing:

This is where the facts of the case are

deemedsufficientlydifferentsothatthepreviouscaseisno

longerbinding.

Orderbyconsentoftheparties:

The court can pass orders by consent of the

parties.Thoseordersarenotadjudicationoftherightsand

liabilitiesoftheparties.Thatdecisiondoesnotlaydownany

principle.Thoseordersarenotprecedent.
 11

WhetherjudgmentsofHon'bleHighCourtarebinding
asprecedents:

LikeArticle141empoweringtheSupremeCourt

todeclarethelawandmakingitsprecedentsbindingonall

theCourts,thereisnospecificprovisiondirectlyempowering

theHighCourttodeclarethelawandmakingitsdecisions

bindingonitssubordinateCourts.Butitiswellsettledthat

theCourtsfromaStatesubordinatetoaHighCourtfromthat

Stateareboundbyitsdecisions.Questioniswhatisthebasis

forthissettledlaw.

The Honble Supreme Court in M/s. East India

CommercialCo.Ltd.CalcuttaandanotherV/s.Collectorof

Customs,Calcutta(AIR1962S.C.1893) heldinpara31of

theJudgmentasunder:

31UnderArt.215,everyHigh

Court shall bea court of recordandshall

haveallthepowersofsuchacourtincluding

the power topunishfor contemptofitself.

UnderArt.226,ithasaplenarypowerto

issue ordersorwritsfortheenforcementof

the fundamental rights and for any other

 12

purpose to any person or authority,

including in appropriate cases any

Government within its territorial

jurisdiction. Under Art. 227, it has

jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals

throughout the territories in relation to

whichitsexercisesjurisdiction.Itwouldbe

anomalous to suggest that a tribunal over

which the High Court has superintendence

can ignore the law declared by that Court

andstartproceedingsindirectviolationof

it. If a tribunal can do so, all the

subordinate courts can equally do so, for

thereisnospecificprovision,justlikeinthe

case of Supreme Court, making the law

declared by the High Courts binding on

subordinate courts. It is implicit in the

powerofsupervisionconferredonasuperior

tribunalthatallthetribunalssubjecttoits

supervisionshouldconformtothelawlaid

down by it. Such obedience would also be

 13

conducive to their smooth working

otherwise,therewouldbeconfusioninthe

administration of law and respect for law

would irretrievably suffer. We, therefore,

hold that the law declared by the highest

courtintheStateisbindingonauthorities

ortribunalsunderitssuperintendence,and

thattheycannotignoreiteitherininitiating

a proceeding or deciding on the rights

involvedinsuchaproceeding.Ifthatbeso,

thenoticesissuedbytheauthoritysignifying

thelaunchingofproceedingscontrarytothe

lawlaiddownbytheHighCourtwouldbe

invalidandtheproceedingsthemselvescould

bewithoutjurisdiction.

Perincuriamdecisions:

Perincuriamdecisionsdonothavebindingeffect.

Per incuriam decisions mean where the court has acted in

ignoranceofapreviousdecisionofitsownorofacourtof

coordinate jurisdiction or when the decision is given in

 14

ignoranceofthetermsofastatuteorarulehavingstatutory

force.

The Apex Court in State of Bihar Vs. Kalika

KueraliasKalikaSingh&others(2003)5SCC448 held

that:

A decision is given per incuriam

whenthecourthasactedinignoranceofa

previousdecisionofitsownorofacourtof

coordinate jurisdiction which covered the

casebeforeit,inwhichcaseitmustdecide

whichcasetofollow;orwhenithasactedin

ignorance of House of Lords decision, in

whichcaseitmustfollowthatdecisions;or

when the decision is givenin ignorance of

the terms of a statute or rule having

statutoryforce.
 15

CONFLICTING DECISIONS OF DIFFERENT

STRENGTH:
Ifthereisconflictbetweenthedecisionoflesserbench,

thenlawlaiddownbythelargerbenchwillbebinding.In

thisregardtheFiveJudgesConstitutionBenchofHonourable

SupremeCourtincaseofCentralBoardofDawoodiBohra

Communityv.StateofMaharashtra, (2005)2SCC673

hasobservedthat,

ThelawlaiddownbythisCourtina
decisiondeliveredbyaBenchoflarger
strengthisbindingonanysubsequent
Benchoflesserorcoequalstrength.

ThisviewisalsofollowedbyHonourableBombayHigh

CourtincaseofRelianceGeneralInsuranceCompanyLtd.

versus Syeda Aleemunbee w/o. Syed Razaq. First

Civil

Appeal No. 1611 of 2013, decided on 03.03.2014, To

quoteHonourableBombayHighCourt

28) It iswellsettled, judicial process

demandsthatajudgemoveswithinthe
frameworkofrelevantlegalrulesand
the coveted modes of those for
ascertaining them. The judicial robe
has its inbuilt discipline, which
 16

mandates,foraHighCourttoadhere
intunewiththeprecedentofSupreme
Court and in particular of the larger
Benches. This is moreso,ifthereare
divergentviewsbyHonourbleJudgesof
the Supreme Court, on identical
issues.

EFFECTOFORDERSOFHIGHERCOURT:

AnyinterimorderpassedevenbytheSupremeCourtis

limited to that particular case and should not be used as

precedent for other cases specifically when the Supreme

Court itself has earlier authoritatively decidedthe question

whichissquarelyinvolvedinthelatercase.TheHon'bleApex

Court in Megh Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 2003 SC

3184]hasheldthat,

circumstantial flexibility, one

additionalordifferentfactmaymakea
worldofdifferencebetweenconclusion
intwocasesorbetweentwoaccusedin
thesamecase.Eachcasedependsonits
own facts and a close similarity
between one case and another is not
enough because a single significant
detailmayaltertheentireaspect.
 17

Conclusion:

Precedents work like lighthouse to guide all

courts. Precedentsbringcertaintyinlaw.Theyalwayshelp

the lower court judges, specially the junior judges to deal

withapplyingthelawcorrectly.Sometimesthejudgesmay

supporttheirviewswithhelpoftheprecedents.Thesearethe

guidelines which must be followed by the lower courts to

ensuretherealjustice,consistency,uniformityinthejudicial

decisions and also provide predictability to the individual

rights.

Submittedwithallrespect.

GroupMembers (U.M.Padwad)
GroupLeader,
Shri.M.B.Pathan, DistrictJudgeI,
C.J.J.D&J.M.F.C.,Sironcha. Gadchiroli.
Shri.V.M.Karhadkar,
C.J.J.D&J.M.F.C.,Kurkheda.
Shri.S.M.Bomidwar
2ndJt.C.J.J.D&J.M.F.C.,Gad.
Shri.D.J.Patil,
C.J.J.D&J.M.F.C.,Chamorshi