DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS

Introduction
Meaning of the doctrine of stare decisis and its underlying principles:
A doctrine is simply a guideline or directive; it is not necessarily a law that cannot be broken.
The Latin maxim "stare decisis et non quieta movere," which means to uphold one's
decisions, contains the doctrine of stare decisis. It is also incorporated in Article 141 of the
Indian Constitution, which states that all courts operating within the Indian subcontinent must
follow the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law. It simply means that the courts base
their judgments on earlier, comparable cases. The earlier rulings set a precedent for the
decision.
Precedents are legal principles or regulations established by court decisions. Judges will use
these rulings as precedent or guidance when deciding cases and situations of a similar nature
in the future. Courts are required by the Stare Decisis doctrine to consider precedents before
making a judgment.

Essential objectives of the doctrine of Stare Decisis

Legal rules or principles that have been established by a court are known as precedents.
Judges will refer to these decisions as a precedent or as a guide when making decisions in the
future on cases and circumstances of a similar sort. The Stare Decisis doctrine requires courts
to consider precedence before rendering a decision.
 The doctrine of Stare Decisis builds self-assurance amongst the people in planning
their economic and social transactions by acknowledging that their movements are in
compliance with the regulation.
 The doctrine of Stare Decisis encourages the personal resolution of disputes because
the court may deliver its choice primarily based on the selection of a similar
previously determined case or prison problem. Because parties have difficulty
recognizing the final results of a similar legal issue, they may look for a non-public
dispute decision instead of going through the conventional court method.
 The doctrine of Stare Decisis reduces the load on the courts. It removes the
requirement to litigate again in the cases wherein the decisions have already been
given. It additionally curbs the need for clean litigation whenever the choose/bench
adjustments.
 The doctrine of Stare Decisis strengthens the self-assurance of the humans inside the
judiciary as the stated principle establishes positive restrictions and constraints on the
powers of the judges. as instance, the doctrine of Stare Decisis requires the judges to
determine criminal topics earlier than them in a foreseeable and rational manner.
LAW DECLARED BY SUPREME COURT UNDER
ARTICLE 141
According to Article 141, all courts within the Indian territory are required to follow the law
or judgment that the Supreme Court has decreed. The Supreme Court in the Bengal Immunity
case1 unanimously held that Article 141 of the Indian Constitution could not be so construed
as to make the prior decisions of the Supreme Court binding on it. “Courts,” as Article 141
was held not to include the Supreme Court. The view that Article 141 does not make the
Supreme Court decisions binding on the court itself has been repeated in many other cases.
The fact that the Supreme Court has overruled its previous decisions in many ways is the
affirmation that both judicial practice and constitutional interpretation have combined to
release the court from the fetters of its own decisions.
The Supreme court has a more outstanding obligation to update the law to reflect
contemporary and progressive ideas because it is entrusted with establishing the law for the
authoritative guidance of the subordinate courts.
Although the Supreme Court is slow to overturn its precedents until extremely grave
circumstances make a change in the law necessary, this reserve power is a crucial part of its
authority.
Because of this, it could be feasible to view Article 141 as just codifying judicial practice
rather than requiring the highest court to be wholly bound by its precedents.
Judicial Power to expand statutory power
The Supreme Court went a step forward and expanded the powers under Article 141. In
Paramjit Kaur vs. the State of Punjab2 The National Human Rights Commission was given a
directive by the Supreme Court to look into and provide a report on extrajudicial executions
in Punjab.
The Commission's authority was then questioned in light of its legal responsibilities and
constraints, including the ban on conducting further investigations after a year, as stated in
section 36(2) of the 1993 Protection of Human Rights Act.
The decision of the Supreme Court to refer the case to the Commission was upheld as having
been made in the entire exercise of its authority under Article 32, which effectively
designates the Commission as a body sui generis with the power to carry out Supreme Court
orders.
The Supreme Court ruled that it could grant authority to a body to operate outside its
jurisdiction by issuing instructions and directives.

1
Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661
2
State of Haryana vs. Ranbir, [2006] 5 SCC 167: 2006 SCC (L&S) 1012.
Binding on tribunals
The Supreme Court emphasized that tribunals must also adhere to the precedent doctrine. A
tribunal must abide by the rules of the relevant High Court and Supreme Court.3

Two decisions by equal Benches

In Kalabai Choubey vs. Rajabahadur Yadav4, the High Court was left with a difficult decision
when two equally balanced Supreme Court benches issued conflicting rulings on the same
case. In this case of motor vehicle claims, the Supreme Court rendered multiple choices on
the issue at hand from Benches of equal strength.
Following a review of various Supreme Court rulings on the binding nature of precedent, the
Court declared that it is not required to follow all decisions or decisions that are rendered
later in time but instead may do so if it believes that one is more sound from a legal
standpoint.
It further stated that the High Court must follow the judgment that, in its opinion, says the
law more fully, precisely, and in accordance with the design of the Act, even if the views of
the co-equal Benches of the Supreme Court are in direct disagreement.

High Courts cannot overrule Supreme Court’s decisions

In Suganthi Suresh Kumar vs. Jagdeeshan5, The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court
was not empowered to overturn the Apex Court's ruling since it had established the law
without taking any other factors into account.
The Constitution of India mandates in Article 141 that the law announced by the Supreme
Court will be binding on all courts inside the country. Therefore, it is not just an issue of
discipline for the High Courts in India.

Duty of the High Courts to assist the Supreme Court

The High Court or Subordinate Courts must abide by the Supreme Court's rulings regarding
fundamental issues.
The Supreme Court recently stated in the case of Director of Settlements, A.P vs. M.R.
Apparao that "a judgment of the High Court which refuses to follow the decision and
directions of the Supreme Court or seeks to revive a decision of the High Court which had
been set aside by the Supreme Court is a nullity." 6

Supreme Court and Overruling of Precedent

3
Rooplal vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi, [2000] 1 SCC 644:2000 SCC (L&S) 213; Govt. of A.P. vs. A.P. Jaiswal,
[2001] 1 SCC 748: 2001 SCC (L&S) 316: AIR 2001 SC 499
4
AIR 2002 MP 8
5
[2002] 2SCC 420:2002 SCC (cri) 344
6
[2002] 4 SCC 638
The supreme court's ability to reverse prior rulings in a legal system entails the court's
capacity to amend or adopt laws in response to shifting social needs.
The following conditions support overturning:
i. The contested decision was made recently.
ii. The jury's verdict was split, if not evenly balanced.
iii. One of the judges who participated in the majority judgment in the previous decision
believes he made a mistake when he held the opinion he did on the last occasion and
is now willing to change his mind.
iv. The inconsistent reasoning used in the concurring opinions makes the determination
on the issue less than obvious. In other words, it's unclear what the ratio is on the
topic.
v. An incorrect constitutional interpretational judgment has caused public hardship or
discomfort.
vi. The power of review must be used responsibly and cautiously to further the public’s
welfare.

Gopalan Case overruled

A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras7originated from the custody of a renowned communist in
India, A.K. Gopalan.
The U.S. Constitution's definition of "due process of law" refers to "procedure established by
law," according to the Supreme Court, but it only refers to state-made statutes. If any
statutory law prescribes a procedure for denying someone their rights or personal liberty, it
should comply with Article 21's requirements.
However, this ruling was overturned in the R.C. Cooper v. Union of India8 case. Following
this, the apex court issued several judgments, notably Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India9,
which stated that any law that abridges someone's life and liberty must be just and fair.

Golak Nath case10

The ruling issued by an eleven-judge bench in the Golak Nath case established the Supreme
Court's authority to reject its earlier orders prospectively. American courts previously
employed this doctrine to accomplish desired objectives in certain circumstances. The Indian
Court established some conditions restricting the use of the rule in the Indian system because
it was the first time the court had used this American doctrine.

It was established that:

7
AIR 1950 SC 27
8
AIR 1970 SC 564
9
AIR 1978 SC 597
10
I.C. Golak Nath & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., AIR 1967 SC 1643
I. The doctrine of prospective overruling may only be invoked in matters arising under
our constitution
II. The highest court in the nation may only apply it may only be applied by the highest
court in the country, the Supreme Court, as it has the constitutional authority to
declare the law binding on all courts within the territory of India; and
III. The Supreme Court retains the right to modify the retrospective application of the
law it declares superseding its earlier decisions.

Mandal case11
The idea of prospective overruling is mentioned in the Mandal Commission case. Justice
Jeevan Reddy made the decision in this case that the ruling would take effect five years from
the date of the decision.
As a result, the court extended the period from the judgment date to five years before
implementing the decision. In this case, the doctrine's application is being expanded, and the
duration of the judgment's effect is also being prolonged.

VISHAKA GUIDELINES12
The Vishaka Guidelines were a collection of guidelines for how sexual harassment claims
should be handled in India. The Indian Supreme Court introduced them in 1997, but the
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act
replaced them in 2013.
In the 1990s, Bhanwari Devi, a worker with the Women Development Program in the state of
Rajasthan, was raped by the local landlords for trying to stop child marriage.
The feudal patriarchs planned to teach her a lesson by repeatedly raping her since they were
outraged by her (in their words: "a lowly woman from a poor and wretched community").
The Rajasthan High Court failed to provide the victim justice, and the rapists were free to
roam the streets. This infuriated a women's rights organization, Vishaka, which brought a
public interest case before the Indian Supreme Court.
In the same Vishaka case, the Supreme Court rendered a historic judgment in 1997 that
established the precedent for how businesses should handle allegations of sexual harassment.
The court ordered that these rules be followed up until the issue is resolved via legislation.
According to the court, "International Conventions and norms are significant for the purpose
of interpreting the guarantee of gender equality, right to a dignified workplace in Articles 14,
15 of the Constitution, 19(1)(g), and 21 and the safeguards against sexual harassment implicit
therein."

CONCLUSION
11
Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477.
12
VISHAKA GUIDELINES. http://gptsoraba.in/english/doc/vishakaguidelines.pdf
The continual application of the doctrine of precedent and stare decisis stands in the way of
society's changing structures and trends. In conclusion, although common law generally
recognizes precedent as binding, judges may occasionally deviate from precedent when it
"appears right to do so" and may distinguish between different precedents when creating new
law, suggesting that the importance of precedent varies with individual judges. Furthermore,
as society changes, so do times and situations, and an antiquated legal system should
constrain no era.
In light of this, it is clear that the doctrines of stare decisis and precedents encourage
consistency and certainty in all judicial judgments.
These principles also aid in encouraging convenience for the attorneys and judges, as it is
convenient to pass the same verdict if the facts of the case are similar when a legal matter has
previously been decided and made binding.
Regaining the public's trust in the judicial system also aids in lowering the likelihood of
errors being made by judges when rendering a decision.
One of the disadvantages of binding doctrines is that judges are forced to adhere to well-
established precedents and the principle of stare decisis rather than applying their knowledge
of the facts of the case.
One of their notable characteristics is that these doctrines are flexible and not necessarily
binding.