Answer:- Difference between

Precendent and Custom are:-

(i) Law is a make; custom is a

growth. Law is explicitly and
deliberately made by the
definite power of the state,
whereas custom "is a group of
procedure that has gradually
emerged, without express
enactment, without any
constituted authority to declare
it; to apply it and to safeguard
it." Custom emerges
spontaneously without any
guide or direction. Law is
consciously created and put into
force at the moment of its
enactment. In other words, law
is a make, custom is a growth.

(ii) Law needs a special agency

for enforcement, custom does
not. Law is applied by a special
agency and is sanctioned by
organized coercive authority.
Custom does not need any
special agency for its
application it is enforced by
spontaneous social action. No
physical penalty visits a violator
of custom; whereas
punishment is meted out to
one who violates the law. The
state will not punish a child if it
does not touch the feet of his
parents in the morning.

(iii) Law is specific, customs are

not. Law is specific, definite and
clear. One can know what the
laws of the land are. But as
Maine opined, it is only known
by a privileged minority.
Customs, on the other hand, are
not definite or clear. They are
not codified in any single book
so that it becomes difficult to
know all the customs of the
land.
(iv) Law is more flexible and
adaptable than custom. Law can
readily adjust itself to changing
condition: whereas customs
cannot be readily changed.
Customs are relatively fixed and
permanent. In times of crisis a
law can be immediately enacted
to meet the emergency. A
sudden change cannot be
brought about in custom.

In India when the Central

Government employees had
gone on strike thus
paralysing the life of the
community, the
Government of India at once
met the situation by
declaring the strike illegal
and enacting a statute
banning strikes in essential
services.

The more dynamic the society,

the less is reliance placed on
traditional customary rules and
the more it is placed on newly
enacted regulations. Roscoe
Pound stated, "Law must be
stable and yet cannot stand
still." Thus law is more flexible
and adaptable than custom.
The
former can be introduced,
amended 01 abolished with
relative ease, whereas to
reform or adjust the latter is an
arduous task.

(v) Customs fade and

disappear without formal
abolition and without
recognition by any authority,
but laws disappear only when
abolished by a recognized
authority. Just as formal
enactment of law is necessary
for it to come into effect, so its
formal abolition is necessary to
stop its binding
influence.

(vi) Law is more idealistic than

custom. Law tends to be more
idealistic than customs. It is the
offspring of mind and directed
to aims which are far above the
actual practice of society,
custom is the product
experience and mainly
concerned with the daily
routine of life. Law reforms the
customs and abolishes those
which are out of tune with the
changing conditions, for
example, the Hindu Code Bill
seeks to reform and abolish
many of the Hindu customs
regarding marriage, divorce and
succession.

(vii) Law generally deals with

matters which are vital to the
life of society: whereas the
subject matter of custom is
more ordinary and familiar. The
customs we observe in
addressing persons of authority
or taking our meals or
celebrating our festivals do not
rise above the commonplace;
but the laws passed for creating
a national academy of Sangeet
or Sahitya, establishing a
welfare state, abolishing
Zamindari system; introducing
Three Year Degree course,
making the joining of N.C.C.
compulsory and nationalising
the banks deeply affect the
social structure.
Merits and demerits of
judicial precedents:-
There is a reason for the
decision of a case, whether we
understand it or not. It is
necessary that the same is
followed henceforth. Settled
disputes must not be argued
upon again as it results in a
waste of the court's time.
Precedents are based on
customs and are therefore
reflective of public opinion. It
gives certainty to the law. While
the law lays out certain
situations, these precedents
account for those factors that
cannot be factored into theory.
It guides judges to think
practically without prejudice.
Certain important issues may
not be raised in precedents that
might cost a party the case, a
lower court cannot overturn the
verdict of a higher court.
Sometimes the decision itself
can be wrong but cannot be
overturned.
 Conclusion:
The supporters of both the
views have made exaggeration.
As observed earlier, it is due to
their differences in the
definition of law. They have
spoken of the superiority of one
or the other on that basis. In the
present age, both are equally
important and one cannot attain
its end without the other. The
aim of the law is the protection
and progress of the society and
the individual. For a planned
progress, legislation is very
necessary,
thus they both contribute
equally to the development of
law.