METHODS OF LEGISLATION

AND
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

Topic - Previous Decision/Stare Decisis

SUBMITTED TO – SUBMITTED BY -

Mr. SANDEEP RISHAM RAAG SINGH

22088
 MASTER OF LAWS (2 YEARS)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Mr.

Sandeep who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on

the topic “Previous Decision”, which also helped me in doing a lot of

Research and I came to know about so many new things I am really thankful

to her .Secondly I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped

me a lot in finalizing this project within the limited time frame.

Risham Raag Singh

22088
 INDEX
Sr. No. Topic Page No.
1. Introduction 1
2. Stare Decisis: Legal 1-2
Maxim
3. Foundation of the 2-3
Doctrine
4. Article 141 of the 3-4
Constitution of India
5. Merits of the Doctrine 4
Stare Decisis
6. Demerits of the Doctrine 5
Stare Decisis
7. Case Laws 5-6
8. Conclusion 6
9. Reference 7
INTRODUCTION

In a layman’s language, Previous Decision means ‘an official action or decision that has

happened in the past and is considered as an example or rule to follow in the same

situation later’. Whenever a decision is passed by the judge/bench, it becomes a

precedent and the said decision given in a particular legal case makes it likely that other

similar cases will be dealt/decided in the same way. The court’s policy of adhering to

previous decisions is known as stare decisis. It simply means “to stand by the decided

matters” i.e., stick to a decision. ‘Stare decisis’ is an acronym of the Latin phrase ‘stare

decisis et non quieta movere” ’which means “to stand by decisions and not to disturb the

already settled matters.” Thus, it means to stick to one conclusion and not disrupt settled

things. The legal principle of stare decisis requires courts to follow and respect

precedents established by the court of higher authority.

STARE DECISIS ET NON QUIETA MOVERE : LEGAL MAXIM

The doctrine of stare decisis refers to the rule in which the court would follow previous

judicial decisions in future instances. As a result, when the same questions or arguments

are addressed in later instances, the court will follow the findings of previous cases. The

phrase ‘the doctrine of precedent,’ according to Salmond, has two interpretations. In a

broad sense, precedents are reported, may be cited, and are likely to be followed by

courts. In a literal sense, it indicates that a precedent not only carries a lot of weight but

that in certain instances, courts are obliged by past decisions. As a result, all a court truly

does is apply precedents or rulings laid down in the past.

system. It renders final decisions in cases. The decision is a source of authority for

whatever it determines. The ratio is what matters in a decision, not every observation

contained within, or what logically emerges from the different observations stated in the

judgment. The statement of the reason or principle on which a court has resolved a case is

sufficient to establish a precedent. The word ‘law declared’ is the one that is legally

binding. A conclusion that is not expressed, not based on reasoning, and not based on a

thorough examination of the problem cannot be considered ‘law declared.’

FOUNDATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS IN INDIA

The theory of stare decisis is based on the principle of maintaining consistency and

certainty. The judicial system requires a high level of predictability, stability, and

certainty. Precedent appeals to the core want in a legal system that is based on

reasonable, regular, and stable expectations. It meets the requirement that all other things

being equal, a legal system should settle a dispute in a comparable manner, regardless of

the various courts. It discourages re-litigation of problems that have previously been

decided authoritatively.

The notion of stare decisis, in its current form, does not appear to have existed in India

prior to the arrival of the British. Following the foundation of British authority in India,

the notion of binding precedent became relevant in India. The notion of stare decisis is

predicated on the two preconditions which are the hierarchy of courts and the reporting of

judgments.
 The judgment of the Exchequer courts was granted binding power for the first time in

England in the 17th century. After the British conquest of India, the notion of precedent

was developed in India, which led to a hierarchy of courts and the concept of a higher

court’s judgment being regarded as a binding decision on subordinate courts. As a result,

stare decisis has been a characteristic feature of our legal system since the 18th century.

The idea of stare decisis was not widely employed at first owing to a lack of written

records of decisions or judgments in cases, but once the notion of keeping a record of the

verdict was introduced, the wide usage of the doctrine was witnessed.

ARTICLE 141 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

The Latin maxim ‘stare decisis et not quieta movere’ enshrines the idea and concept of

stare decisis, which is codified in Article 141 of the Indian Constitution of 1949. Article

141 states that any legislation pronounced by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts

within the territory of India. It further states that only a case’s ratio decidendi, not the

obiter dictum or the mere facts of the case, has binding force. As a result, in order for

other courts to implement the Supreme Court’s ruling, they must first comprehend the

correct concept and principle established in the preceding case.

ARTICLE 141 HIGHLIGHTS CERTAIN IMPORTANT CONCEPTS:

1. All the Indian courts are required and bound by law to follow the Supreme Court’s ruling

and maintain the concept and principle constant;

2. The judgment must be read in its entirety, with the remarks from the judgment being

assessed in light of the issues before the court;

precedent;

4. When a court is divided in determining a matter, the result reached by the judges in the

majority will be cited as a precedent, rather than the one reached by the judges in

minority;

5. Supreme Court’s ex-parte rulings are also legally binding and can be used as precedents;

6. The decision of the Supreme Court does not bind it;

7. The binding character of a judgment is not affected by procedural irregularities or

immateriality;

8. Special leave petitions are legally binding.

MERITS OF THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS

1. It saves time and prevents needless lawsuits.

2. The legislation is developing in a systematic manner.

3. The most significant benefit was that it increased legal clarity and uniformity. A

competent decision-making body must be consistent in its decisions and prevent

arbitrariness in its decisions.

4. It removes the element of uncertainty and allows inferior courts to adopt the higher

court’s ruling unanimously and without dissent.

5. The presence of precedent reduces the chances of a judge making an error while

assessing the principle in question.

1. Practical law is founded on experience, taking precedent into account reduces the scope

of experience, which detracts from the core of practising law;

2. It has been chastised for impeding the free evolution of law;

3. The doctrine’s and precedent system’s most serious flaws is its rigidity and unwillingness

to allow change;

4. Another downside is that it is complicated, which makes the situation more unpredictable

at times.

5. Many times, judicial rulings that are perceived to be errors are upheld as precedent law.

CASE LAW

1. Hari Singh v. State of Haryana (1993)

In this case, it was held that one of the key concepts to be kept in mind in the system of

justice administered by courts is that the courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction should have

consistent opinions in respect to similar sets of facts and circumstances or questions of

law. Instead of establishing judicial concord, if opinions offered on identical facts are

discordant, judicial anarchy will result. The view that has dominated the field for a long

period must not be shaken simply because another opinion exists. As a result, the notion

of stare decisis was upheld.

2. Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Sun Engineering Works Private Limited

(1992)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that in applying the decision to subsequent cases, the

court must carefully try to ascertain the true principle established by the Supreme Court
decision, rather than cherry-picking words or sentences from the judgment that are

divorced from the context of the question under consideration by the court to support

their reasoning. The judgment would not be binding if it did not specify a justification for

determining a point, because the reason for the decision is what is binding.

3. State of Orissa and Others v. Mohd. Hiyas (2006)

In this case, it was held that the substance of a decision is its ratio decidendi, rather than

every observation contained in the judgment. The statement or the reason or principle on

which a court has resolved a case is sufficient to establish a precedent.

CONCLUSION

We can conclude by saying that stare decisis means “the rule of precedent.” When a court

has previously reviewed a legal problem and made a decision, it is referred to as

precedent. A higher court’s decision is binding on the lower court and serves as a

precedent for the lower court’s decision, which cannot be twisted by the lower court. This

idea is known as stare decisis, which translates to “stand by what has been declared.” It is

commonly known as the notion of precedent in India. Justice Cardozo says, “in a system

so highly developed as our own, precedents have so covered the ground that they fix the

point of departure from which the labour of the judge begins. Almost invariably, his first

step is to examine and compare them. If they are plain and to the point, there may be a

need for nothing more. Stare decisis is at least the everyday working rule of our law”.
 REFERENCES

1. [Link]

%20the%20legal,basis%20of%20this%20legal%20principle.

2. [Link]

3. [Link]