Understanding the Doctrine of Precedent in Indian Law: Its Role and Application

The doctrine of precedent, also known as stare decisis (Latin for “to stand by things decided”), is a fundamental principle of common law systems, including India. This doctrine ensures consistency, predictability, and stability in the judicial process by obligating courts to follow previous decisions when deciding cases with similar facts or issues. In the Indian legal framework, the doctrine of precedent is not just a guiding principle but a cornerstone of judicial discipline and the rule of law.

Meaning and Basis of Precedent

The doctrine of precedent is based on the idea that like cases should be treated alike to maintain uniformity in the legal system. A precedent is a judgment or decision of a court that serves as an authoritative rule for future cases of a similar nature.
In India, the legal basis of this doctrine stems from:

1. Article 141 of the Constitution of India: It states, “The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.” This provision elevates the judgments of the Supreme Court to the status of binding precedents.
2. Hierarchy of Courts: India’s judiciary operates under a hierarchical structure, with the Supreme Court at the top, followed by High Courts, and then subordinate courts. Lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts.

Types of Precedents

Precedents can be categorized into the following types:

1. Binding Precedents: These are decisions that lower courts are obligated to follow. For example, judgments of the Supreme Court are binding on all subordinate courts in India.
2. Persuasive Precedents: These are not binding but may be considered by a court for guidance. For example, decisions of foreign courts or other High Courts may act as persuasive precedents.
3. Original Precedents: These establish a new principle of law for the first time.
4. Declaratory Precedents: These merely declare or apply an existing principle without creating a new rule.

Hierarchy of Precedent in India

1. Supreme Court of India:
   • Decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all lower courts (Article 141).
   • The Supreme Court itself is not strictly bound by its own previous decisions. However, in practice, it follows them to maintain consistency unless there is a compelling reason to overrule.
   • Example: The Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)during the K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) judgment, recognizing the right to privacy as a fundamental right.
2. High Courts:
   • Decisions of a High Court are binding on all subordinate courts within its territorial jurisdiction.
   • A High Court is not bound by the decisions of another High Court, but such decisions may be considered persuasive.
3. Subordinate Courts:
   • Subordinate courts are bound by the decisions of both the High Court under whose jurisdiction they fall and the Supreme Court.

Application of Precedents in India

The application of precedents in India involves interpreting judicial decisions in light of the legal principles established therein. The following key aspects determine the applicability of precedents:

1. Ratio Decidendi vs. Obiter Dicta:
   • Ratio Decidendi: The principle of law or the reasoning that forms the basis of a judgment is binding.
   • Obiter Dicta: Observations made by a judge that are not essential to the decision are not binding but may hold persuasive value.
2. Distinguishing Cases:
   Courts may distinguish a precedent if the facts of the case at hand differ materially from the earlier case.
3. Overruling Precedents:
   A higher court can overrule a precedent set by itself or a lower court if it deems the earlier decision incorrect.
4. Per Incuriam Decisions:
   A precedent rendered per incuriam (through ignorance of a statutory provision or binding precedent) is not binding.

Advantages of the Doctrine of Precedent

1. Certainty: Judicial decisions provide a clear framework for future cases.
2. Uniformity: Similar cases are treated alike, ensuring fairness.
3. Judicial Economy: Established precedents save time and resources by providing ready-made solutions to recurring issues.
4. Guidance for Lawyers: Precedents assist lawyers in advising clients and predicting case outcomes.

Criticisms of the Doctrine of Precedent

1. Rigidity: Strict adherence to precedents may lead to injustice in specific cases.
2. Complexity: Identifying the relevant ratio decidendi in lengthy judgments can be challenging.
3. Judicial Errors: Erroneous precedents may perpetuate incorrect legal principles until they are overruled.
4. Slowing Legal Development: Over-reliance on past decisions may hinder the evolution of the law.

Landmark Cases on Precedents in India

Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/257876

1. Key Principle: The Basic Structure Doctrine.
2. Impact: This case established that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its “basic structure.”
3. Ensures the preservation of fundamental principles like secularism, democracy, and judicial review.

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan

1. Key Principle: Protection of women from sexual harassment at the workplace.
2. Impact: The Supreme Court laid down the Vishaka Guidelines to prevent and address workplace sexual harassment.
3. The guidelines later culminated in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

1. Key Principle: Reservation policy and the 50% cap.
2. Impact: The Court upheld the 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) but introduced a 50% cap on total reservations.
3. The concept of “creamy layer” was introduced to exclude the affluent within OBCs from reservation benefits.

Shah Bano Case (1985)

1. Key Principle: Rights of Muslim women to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
2. Impact: The Court ruled in favor of Shah Bano, granting her alimony.
3. The case highlighted the tension between secular laws and personal laws, leading to the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)

1. Key Principle: Decriminalization of homosexuality.
2. Impact: The Supreme Court struck down parts of Section 377 of the IPC, decriminalizing consensual homosexual relationships.
3. Marked a significant step towards LGBTQ+ rights in India.

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

1. Key Principle: Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right.
2. Impact: Declared that the right to privacy is intrinsic to Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
3. Had implications for data protection, surveillance, and personal autonomy.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987, 1988, 1991, etc.)

1. Key Principle: Environmental jurisprudence.
2. Impact: Series of judgments addressing issues like pollution, hazardous industries, and environmental conservation.
3. The Supreme Court introduced the concept of “absolute liability” in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)(Oleum Gas Leak case).

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

1. Key Principle: Freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
2. Impact: The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as unconstitutional.
3. Reinforced the importance of free speech in the digital age.

Conclusion

The doctrine of precedent plays an indispensable role in the Indian legal system by ensuring consistency, stability, and predictability in judicial decisions. While it is not without challenges, its advantages far outweigh its limitations. The careful balance between adhering to precedent and allowing judicial innovation has enabled Indian courts to develop a robust body of law that adapts to changing societal needs.

As the legal landscape evolves, the doctrine of precedent will continue to guide judges, lawyers, and litigants in navigating the complexities of law, ensuring that justice is not only done but is seen to be done.

Link to similar articles: https://jpassociates.co.in/natural-justice/