JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

SUBJECT- …………………
PROJECT WORK ON

DOCTRINE OF STARE DESISIS

SUBMITTED TO- ……………..

SUBMITTED BY-

Gufran Khan
TH
5
SEMESTER
Definition of STARE DECISIS

: a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions
unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice

Origin of STARE DECISIS

Latin, to stand by decided matters

First Known Use: 1782

Definition

Legal maxim that once a principle of law has been determined by an appellate court to be

applicable to the facts of a case, it will be followed in the future cases involving substantially
identical facts, unless overruled by the same or a higher court. It underlies the law
doctrine of precedent. Latin for, to stand by things decided.

Definition of 'Stare Decisis'

A Latin term meaning "to stand by that which is decided". Stare decisis is a legal principle which
dictates that courts cannot disregard the standard. The court must uphold prior decisions. In
essence, this legal principle dictates that once a law has been determined by the appellate court
(which hears and determines appeals from the decisions of the trial courts) to be relevant to the
facts of the case, future cases will follow the same principle of law if they involve considerably
identical facts.
STARE DECISIS AND SUPREME COURT

Stare decisis and Art. 141, Constitutin of India

            The principle of stare decisis is embedded in latin Maxim ‘stare decisis et non quieta
movere’, firmly entrenched in British system of doctrine of binding proceedent and embodied
in Article 141 of the Consitution of India, in short ‘Constitutin’ if provides that the law
declared by Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. The
expressions ‘binding’ and ‘on all courts’ catch our eyes. It is to be discerned as to what is
binding and determined whether the Supreme Court is bound by its own decisions.
Meaning of Stare decisis
            ‘Stare decisis’ means ‘to stand by decided cases’. Wh have hierarchy of courts. The
Supreme Court is at the top of pyramid. It decides cases with a seal of finality. The decision is
an authority for what it actually decides. What is of essence in a decision is it ratio, and not
every observation found therein,l nor what logically flows from the various observations made
in the judgment. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a court
has been decided is alone binding as a precedent1.

Law declared binding

            It is ‘aw declared’ that is binding. The decision not express, nor founded on reasons,
nor proceeding on consideration of the issue cannot be deemed as ‘law declared’2.

Lis
            It is basal to common law doctrine of binding precedent that there should be a lis for
adjudication before the Court, a set of material facts and the Judge has to apply the reasoning
to justify decision after putting the facts in a legal pigeon-hold. Indeterminacy of precedent
authority must not sway away the mind of a Judge. A case is an authority for what it decides. A
decision cannot be relied upon in support of a proposition that it did not decide3.
Res Judicata and Ratio decidendi
            A decision on a matter in issue alone is res judicata; the reason for the decision is not
res judicata. It may resolve a controversy inter partes and may also formulate enunciation of
law. The former is res judicata, while the latter is the reason for decision i.e., ratio decidendi4.

Ratio decidendi and Obiter dicta

            It is ratio decidendi that is binding, and not casual remarks, something said by the way,
statements on hypothetical fact-situations, or problems, which are passed for as obiter dicta.
The obiter dicta is the incidental question which may arise, indirectlly connected with the main
questions, for consideration. Normally even an obiter dictum of Supreme Court is expected to
be obeyed and followed5. The observations on unreal questions decided in personam are not
binding as precedent6.

STARE DECISIS

A basic principle of the law whereby once a decision (a precedent) on a certain set of facts has
been made, another Court of the same rank or lower, must apply that decision in cases
presenting the same set of facts.

The precedent becomes binding and must be followed by courts of like rank.

Background

Stare decisis is a common-law concept derived from the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non
quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed." In common law legal
systems, the judiciary plays an important role in creating law and interpreting legislative
enactments. Under the principal of stare decisis lower courts must follow the decisions of their
supervising courts as long as the two cases are factually identical. If the lower court is unable
to distinguish their case from a controlling decision, the case holding is said to be binding on
the lower courts. Lawyers often take great pains to separate the holding (which is binding on
lower courts) from so-called dicta (language in the decision which is not binding on lower
courts).

Proponents of stare decisis argue that the system leads to greater predictability. For
others, stare decisis arguably leads to the perpetuation of irrational or wrongly decided
decisions. In the United States it has been said that judges use stare decisis when it follows the
outcome of the case they wish to see.

The obligation to follow precedent begins with necessity, and a contrary necessity marks its
outer limit. With Cardozo, we recognize that no judicial system could do society's work if it
eyed each issue afresh in every case that raised it. ... Indeed, the very concept of the rule of law
underlying our own Constitution requires such continuity over time that a respect for precedent
is, by definition, indispensable. ... At the other extreme, a different necessity would make itself
felt if a prior judicial ruling should come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was
for that very reason doomed. [1]

Strict Stare Decisis

Strict stare decisis refer to the idea that courts should always follow their own decisions and
decisions of higher courts, regardless of whether those decisions are sound in judgment. The
concept of strict stare decisis has generally been rejected by courts around the globe.

Horizontal Stare Decisis

Horizontal stare decisis refers to the idea that a court should be bound by its own decisions.

Vertical Stare Decisis

Verticla stare decisis refers to the concept that lower courts are bound by the decisions of
higher courts.

Stare Decisis in Civil Law Jurisdictions

In comparison, civil law judges are generally not constrained by the decisions of higher courts.
However in practice, the differences are often oversold. As a practical matter, both civil law
and common law judges use horizontal and vertical cases to inform their own decisions. [2]
Foundation of Stare Decisis

The guiding principle behind the doctrine of stare decisis is the maintenance of consistency and
certainty. A good level of predictability, stability, and certainty is the need for the legal system.
Precedent appeals to primary desires in a system of laws that is justified expectations of—
rationality, regularity, and stability.

It satisfies that in case of all other things being equal, a legal system should resolve the matter in
similarity irrespective of the different judiciary.  It discourages successive relitigation of the issues
that have already been authoritatively resolved.

The doctrine of stare decisis in India

The doctrine of stare decisis in its present form appears to not have existed in India during the pre-
British era. Post-establishment of British rule in the country the concept of binding precedent came
to be applicable in India.

Hierarchy of courts, as well as reporting of decisions, are the two preconditions for the doctrine of
stare decisis. The Indian Constitution by way of Article 141 makes the ‘law declared’ by the
Supreme Court binding on all courts within the territory in India.

Precedents and treatment by higher courts

For a case that has been earlier decided by a lower court the higher court can do the following:

Reverse: The decision and the initial decision will cease to have any effect
Overrule Wherein a later case a higher court decides that the decision on the first case is wrong. It
overrules the decision of the lower court

Refusal to follow: Where the court cannot reverse or overrule the decision but does not wish to
follow or refuses to follow the decision.

Distinguish: Where the material facts of the case differ and the principles decided in the precedence
is too narrow to be properly applied to the new set of facts.

 Exceptions or doctrine of prospective overruling:

Although the courts follow the principle of precedent in the normal course, the higher forums may
overrule the decisions that may be erroneous or which do not hold good in view of the new
circumstance. The court may overrule a decision where it is recent or there is divided opinion.

Also, it can overrule a decision where the decision is unclear, vague, cause inconvenience and
hardship or the error in the prior decision cannot be easily rectified by the legislative process. Once
overruled, an earlier decision is no longer a binding precedent.

In a case of overruling the judgment of an earlier case, the re-opening of old disputes on the ground
of a change in the legal position may arise. Consequently, a multiplicity of proceedings may also
arise.

The Meaning of "Ratio Decidendi"

The latin expression "ratio decidendi" is one of the most important phrases used in law. It stands
for the "legal principle", "the reason behind the decision" or "the rationale of the case".

In essence, this is the important legal maxim drawn from the case. It is the essential part of the
decision. Less important matters, or matters which are not material are unnecessary. They are
non-essential, and often referred to as "obiter dicta" or "obiter" for short.
The ratio decidendi:

•·        represents the essential elements of the case

•·        recites the fundamental issues in the case

•·        requires a conclusion based of the actual facts in the case

•·        is necessary to the logic of the decision

•·        formulates the legal principles decided in the case

In short, it is the "holding" in a case, or the decision that the court held in a particular case.

The binding part of the case must be part of the ratio decidendi. The legal doctrine of stare
decisis requires lower courts to follow the principles of the law enunciated by the higher courts.
If the fact or principle is part of the ratio decidendi, then it is binding upon lower courts. If it is
merely obiter dicta, then it is not binding.

Fundamentally, one of the roles of the judiciary is to determine in every case that which is part of
the ratio, and that which is obiter. This is also the task of lawyers in subsequent cases.

A lawyer confronted with a difficult decision pronounced in a superior court will need to
distinguish the case, from the one at bar. One of the opportunities is to argue that the superior
court decision contained obiter on the point in issue.

It is also noteworthy that obiter of a very high court, or leading jurist is quite persuasive, and
sometimes more significant that the ratio decidendi of another lower court.

Litigation often revolves around the distinction between ratio and obiter, and stare decisis hangs
in the balance.

This is one of the most difficult challenges in the adversarial judicial system. If it weren't, there
would be no need for lawyers.