AN ASSIGNMENT ON LEGAL RESEARCH AND LEGAL REASONING

Dr. SHAKUNTALA MISRA NATIONAL REHABILITATION UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

AN ASSIGNMENT

ON

DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF

PROF. SHEPHALI YADAV

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

Dr. SHEPHALI YADAV SHASHWAT MISHRA

PROFESSOR B.COM.LLB (Hons.)
FACULTY OF LAW 2nd SEMESTER
D.S.M.N.R.U D.S.M.N.R.U
 AN ASSIGNMENT ON LEGAL RESEARCH AND LEGAL REASONING

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The completion of this Assignment could not have been possible without the participation
and assistance of so many people whose names may not all the be enumerated. Their
contributions are sincerely appreciated and gratefully acknowledged. However, I would like
to express my deep appreciation and indebtedness particularly to the following Prof.Shephali
Yadav for her endless support, kind and understanding spirit during making of this
assignment.

To all relatives, friends and others who in one way or another shared their support, either
morally, financially and physically, thank you Above all, to the Great Almighty, the author of
knowledge and wisdom, for his countless love.
I thank you all.

2|P ag e
DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS
 AN ASSIGNMENT ON LEGAL RESEARCH AND LEGAL REASONING

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION…………...……………………………………...……………..…4

2. FOUNDATION OF STARE DECISIS……………………..…………….……..…..5

3. PRINCIPLES………………………………………..……………….…..….…..……6

4. MERITS…………………………………………..……………..……..……………..7

5. DEMERITS……………………………………..…………………...………………..8

6. SUPREME COURT EXPLAINS………………………..………..………………...9

7. CONCLUSION……………………………………..……………...………………..11

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………….……..……………………...12

3|P ag e
DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS
 AN ASSIGNMENT ON LEGAL RESEARCH AND LEGAL REASONING

INTRODUCTION

Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent. It literally means “to stand by
decided matters”. The phrase “stare decisis” is itself an abbreviation of the Latin phrase
“stare decisis et non quieta movere” which implies “to stand by decisions and not to disturb
settled matters”.

The doctrine of precedent refers to the doctrine that the court is to follow judicial decisions in
earlier cases, when the same questions or points are raised before it in subsequent matters.
According to Salmond, the phrase ‘the doctrine of precedent’ has two meanings. In its loose
sense, it means that precedents are reported, may be cited and will probably be followed by
courts. In strict sense, it means not only that a precedent has great authority but in certain
circumstances, courts are bound by previously decided cases. Thus, what a court really does
is to apply principles or decisions laid down in past.1 It is now appropriate to turn to the
question of how the doctrine of binding precedent works in the context of the English
common law, with particular reference to:

 The way in which the courts decide what it is that is binding in earlier decisions; and
 the extent to which, and the circumstances in which, the highest court should feel free
to depart from its own previous decisions.

The origin of reporting of decision in England can be traced back to 17th century when the
decision of Exchequer courts came to be reported and were given a binding force. In 1833,
Chief Justice Park reiterated the need for recognizing the binding force of precedents in the
historic decision in Mirehouse v. Rennel2.Later, with the establishment of High Court of
Judicature by the Acts of 1873 and 1875 the doctrine of stare decisis was firmly established
and now it forms and indispensable part of the British legal system.

1
Bryan A. Garner, black’s law dictionary( 9th ed. 2004)
2
C L & Fin 527 (546)
4|P ag e
DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS
 AN ASSIGNMENT ON LEGAL RESEARCH AND LEGAL REASONING

FOUNDATION OF STARE DECISIS

The basic reason behind the doctrine of stare decisis is the maintenance of consistency and
certainty. Certainty, predictability and stability in law are considered to be the major
objectives of the legal system, and the doctrine of stare decisis aims at achieving these
objectives.

In Hari Singh v. State of Haryana, it was noted that it is true that in the system of justice
which is administered by courts, one of the basic principles to be kept in mind that the courts
of co-ordinate jurisdiction should have consistent opinions in respect of similar sets of facts
and circumstances or question of law. If opinions given on identical facts are inconsistent,
instead of achieving harmony in the judicial systems, it will lead to judicial anarchy. The
view that has held the field for a long time must not be disturbed merely because of the
possibility of another view.

1. The reason behind Stare Decisis

Understanding the Notion of Precedent For the common-law mind steeped in the tradition of
progressive advancement on a foundation of progressively refined reason, there is a self-
evident quality to the notion of precedent. Precedent appeals to primal desires for—and, in a
system of laws, justified expectations of—rationality, regularity, and stability. 3

2. Institutional and Instrumental Considerations

A further fixture of stare decisis jurisprudence is perhaps the most important for
understanding the doctrine in application. The Supreme Court has long held that stare decisis
is most potent in statutory cases and is weakest in constitutional cases. Stated simply, when a
court interprets a statute, the legislative branch is available to correct, update, or otherwise
revise the judicial determination. Thus, as the Supreme Court has reiterated, “considerations
of stare decisis weigh heavily in the area of statutory construction, where Congress is free to
change this Court’s interpretation of its legislation.”4.

3
Rupert Cross and J.W. Harris, Precedent in English Law 100-01 (4th ed., 1991).
4
Williams,Supra note 6,at 78
5|P ag e
DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS
 AN ASSIGNMENT ON LEGAL RESEARCH AND LEGAL REASONING

PRINCIPLES

The general principles on which the doctrine of stare decisis is based may be stated as
follows:-

1. Each court is absolutely bound by the decision of the court above it.
2. To a certain extent, higher court is bound by their own decisions. In India, the
Supreme Court is, however, not bound by its own earlier decision.
3. The decision of one high court is not binding on any other High court and it has only a
persuasive value.
4. A Single Bench Judge Is bound by the decision of a Division Bench of the same High
court5 but a Division Bench is not bound to follow a decision of a Single Bench
(Judge) of the same High Court.
5. Decision of a larger Bench of the Supreme Court is binding on a Division Bench of
this court especially where the particular determination of this Court not only disposes
of the cases, but also decides a principle of law. 6

5
Inaponda v. Mritunjoya, AIR 1958 Cal 514.
6
A.K. Behra v. Union of India (2010) 5 SCALE 472.
6|P ag e
DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS
 AN ASSIGNMENT ON LEGAL RESEARCH AND LEGAL REASONING

MERITS

According to Hart and Sacks, stare decisis furthers three primary goals.

1. The doctrine promotes private ordering of citizen affairs by enabling them to plan their
social and economic transactions with confidence that they are in compliance with
existing law.
2. Stare decisis also encourages private settlement of disputes by discouraging individuals
from forum and judge shopping (Eskridge and Frickey 1994, 568). Second, stare decisis
furthers fair and efficient adjudication by sparing litigants the need to relitigate (and
judges the need to reconsider) every issue in every case, and it discourages a rush of
litigation whenever a change of personnel occurs on the bench.
3. Stare decisis promotes public confidence in the judiciary by providing some constraints
on judges power through the obligation to build upon prior decisions in a fashion that
may withstand professional criticism. 7

7
William M. Lile, Brief Making and The Use of Law Books ( 3rd ed. 1921)
7|P ag e
DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS
 AN ASSIGNMENT ON LEGAL RESEARCH AND LEGAL REASONING

DEMERITS

Despite the aforesaid merits of stare decisis, it has certain demerits which also deserves a
mention

Stare decisis subverts the Law

The doctrine tends to disfavor legal argument that precedents were wrongly decided,
especially if they are precedents established at a higher level in the appeals hierarchy, and to
demand the litigants “distinguish” their cases from adverse precedents, arguing that those
precedents do not apply to the present case because of elements that make it different from
the cases on which the precedents were established. This can be very difficult to do if there
are a great many recent cases on the same issues which cover most of the possibilities.

The situation can be made more difficult by the rules of most courts which limit the length of
briefs the litigants may file. In working backward through a long line of wrongful precedents,
a litigant can reach the length limit before the argument can make it back to the foundations
where the chain of precedents began to drift away from its authority in the constitutional
enactments.

Stare decisis abide and adheres to decided cases

The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary
to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. There are two
variants on the doctrine of stare decisis. The problem I have discussed here is with the strong
form, which treats precedents as binding. However, there is a weaker form, which treats
precedents as merely persuasive. In this second variant, a dissenting opinion could be more
persuasive than the prevailing opinion, if the person citing it agreed with it. Stare decisis is
the way judges seek the safety of the herd. We need to demand they exhibit more courage,
and return to fundamental principles, resorting to stare decisis only when the positions lie on
the fuzzy boundary of the region of legitimacy.

8|P ag e
DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS
 AN ASSIGNMENT ON LEGAL RESEARCH AND LEGAL REASONING

THE DOCTRINE OF 'STARE DECISIS : SUPREME COURT’S VIEW

The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice D.K. Jain and H.L. Dattu, in Shanker Raju vs
Union of India8, has explained the legal concept of Stare Decisis. The doctrine pertains to the
concept of being bound by one's earlier decision. The concept, as applicable in India, has
been explained by the Supreme Court as under:

It is a settled principle of law that a judgment, which has held the field for a long time, should
not be unsettled. The doctrine of stare decisis is expressed in the maxim "stare decisis et non
quieta movere", which means "to stand by decisions and not to disturb what is settled." Lord
Coke aptly described this in his classic English version as "those things which have been so
often adjudged ought to rest in peace." The underlying logic of this doctrine is to maintain
consistency and avoid uncertainty. The guiding philosophy is that a view which has held the
field for a long time should not be disturbed only because another view is possible. This has
been aptly pointed out by Chandrachud, C.J. in Waman Rao v. Union of India 9, thus:

For the application of the rule of stare decisis, it is not necessary that the earlier decision or
decisions of longstanding should have considered and either accepted or rejected the
particular argument which is advanced in the case on hand. Were it so, the previous decisions
could more easily be treated as binding by applying the law of precedent and it will be
unnecessary to take resort to the principle of stare decisis. It is, therefore, sufficient for
invoking the rule of stare decisis that a certain decision was arrived at on a question which
arose or was argued, no matter on what reason the decision rests or what is the basis of the
decision. In other words, for the purpose of applying the rule of stare decisis, it is
unnecessary to enquire or determine as to what was the rationale of the earlier decision which
is said to operate as stare decisis is a very valuable decisis." In Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v.
Regional Asstt. CST10, it was opined that the doctrine of stare principle of precedent which
cannot be departed from unless there are extraordinary or special reasons to do so. In Ganga
Sugar Corpn. v. State of U.P.11, this Court cautioned that, "the Judgments of this Court are
decisional between litigants but declaratory for the nation." This Court further observed:
Enlightened litigative policy in the country must accept as final the pronouncements of this

8
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 311 of 2010
9
(1981) 2 SCC 362
10
(1976) 4 SCC 124
11
(1980) 1 SCC 223
9|P ag e
DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS
 AN ASSIGNMENT ON LEGAL RESEARCH AND LEGAL REASONING

Court, unless the subject be of such fundamental importance to national life or the reasoning
is so plainly erroneous in the light of later thought that it is wiser to be ultimately right rather
than to be consistently wrong. Stare decisis is not a ritual of convenience but a rule with
limited exceptions." In Union of India v. Raghubir Singh12, this Court has enunciated the
importance of doctrine of binding precedent in the development of jurisprudence of law: ".
Taking note of the hierarchical character of the judicial system in India, it is of paramount
importance that the law declared by this Court should be certain, clear and consistent. It is
commonly known that most decisions of the courts are of significance not merely because
they constitute adjudication on the rights of the parties and resolve the dispute between them,
but also because in doing so they embody a declaration of law operating as a binding
principle in future cases. In this latter aspect lies their particular value in developing the
jurisprudence of the law.

12
(1989) 2 SCC 754
10 | P a g e
DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS
 AN ASSIGNMENT ON LEGAL RESEARCH AND LEGAL REASONING

CONCLUSION

While statutes and enactments of the legislature lay down the general rules to be applied in
the adjudication of disputes between parties, the final authority for the interpretation of those
rules are the courts. The doctrine of stare decisis makes the decisions of courts, usually the
higher forums, binding on subordinate courts in cases in which similar or identical questions
of law are raised before the court. The application of this doctrine ensures that there is
uniformity and certainty in the law. It saves time and efforts of judges and helps in preventing
arbitrary action on the part of judges. The doctrine thus ensures that at least over a certain
period of time law remain certain and people are able to conduct their business in accordance
with the prevalent interpretation of law. In India, the doctrine is constitutionally recognized in
respect of the decisions of the Supreme Court which have been declared under Article 141 to
be binding on all courts and tribunals in the country. In order for the doctrine of stare decisis
to be applicable, there are two basic prerequisites, first that there must be authentic reporting
of decisions of courts. The second requirement is an established hierarchy of courts.

While the doctrine of stare decisis is in the interest of public policy, there are number of
disadvantages of the doctrine. In view of the large numbers of pronouncements of the
Supreme Court and high courts it is difficult to locate all the precedents. Also, even in case of
an erroneous decision, lower forums are bound to follow the decision as precedent. Contrary
decisions, of coordinate benches can create confusion for lower forums. Another major
disadvantage is that if a strict interpretation is given to this doctrine, and precedents are
considered to be binding even on the highest forums, it may hinder the development of law
which is necessary with changes in society

Stare decisis inexorable command?

Stare decisis are not an inexorable command or a mechanical formula of adherence to the
latest decision. It is instead “a principle of policy,” and this Court has a “considered practice”
not to apply that principle of policy “as rigidly in constitutional as in non constitutional
cases.”

11 | P a g e
DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS
 AN ASSIGNMENT ON LEGAL RESEARCH AND LEGAL REASONING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

1. Constitution of India, 1950

Secondary Sources

 Glanville Williams, Learning the Law, (Law Book Company11th Edition, Gurgaon)
 Dr. Paranjape N.V. Jurisprudence, (Eastern Book Company, 8th Edition, Lucknow)
 Singh Ratan, Legal Research Methodology, (Lexis Nexis, 2nd Edition, Nagpur)
 https://www.lawctopus.com
 http://www.legalblog.in/2011/01/doctrine-of-stare-decisis-supreme-court.html

12 | P a g e
DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS