What is the Meaning of Source?
The literal meaning of Source is the origin, principal sources of Indian Law – Statute and Legislation.
Statute law is a law that is created by legislation like the State Legislature. While a Legislature is a kind of assembly that has the power to pass, amend and repeal the laws.
Judicial Precedent is understood as the already established principle which was either confirmed in any other previous law or has been decided by the court to give an effect to its judgment, and the same is being carried and applied to similar cases.
In our further discussion, we will learn in-depth about this Judicial Precedent, its types. For legal discussion, we also have attached certain legal cases associated with the context.
Judicial Precedent
A precedent is an already established principle or rule in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for the court or any other tribunal body when deciding the following cases with similar issues or facts. Common legal systems greatly affect the deciding cases according to the consistent principle rules, for similar facts which will yield easier and predictable outcomes. Observance of the precedent is a mechanism by which the goal is achieved. The principle is known as ‘Stare Decisis’ which compels the judges to stick by the precedents, and not to make other inferences from the issue as the judgment is already stated.
Types of Judicial Precedent
The types of Judicial Precedents are discussed below:
An original precedent is where a judge is compelled to make a decision. He needs to conclude the facts in the case that they have not come before a court previously.
A binding precedent is binding on subordinate courts. A future judge in a lower court mandatorily follows the decision of a previous judge in a higher court, if the facts of the case are similar. There are exceptions also. If case facts are different, the Supreme Court is not so strictly bound by their previous decisions.
Persuasive precedents are not binding on the courts, they might be the statements of a previous common-law judge who has made decisions that can influence a future judge in his/her own decision making.
Judicial Precedent Cases
In the case of Union of India Vs. Raghubir Singh, it was held that "The doctrine of binding precedent has the merit of promoting a certainty and consistency in judicial decisions and enables an organic development of the law, besides assuring the individual as to the consequence of transactions forming daily affairs. Therefore, the need for a clear and rigid enunciation of legal principle in the decisions of a court."
Yet, in another case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Sun Engineering Works Private Limited the Supreme Court held that "While applying the decision to a latter case, the court must carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision of Supreme Court and not to pick out words or sentences from the judgments divorced from the context of the question under consideration by the court to support their reasoning." Any interim order that is passed even by the Supreme Court is limited to that particular case. It is said that it should not be used as a precedent for other cases specifically when the Supreme Court itself has earlier decided the question which is directly involved in the latter case.
Court Precedent Definition
Precedent, in legal terminology, is a judgment or a decision of the court which is cited or is referred to in a subsequent dispute as an example to justify deciding the same case or point of law in the same manner. This common law in English and American legal systems is dependent strongly on the body of pre-established precedents, although in the original development of equity the court theoretically had freedom from precedent. They did not have to rely entirely on precedent decisions. The principle of Stare Decisis meaning - “let the decision stand” became rigidly accepted.
The Doctrine of Binding Judicial Precedent
The doctrine of binding judicial precedent, states that all the courts are bound by all the lower courts, and some courts are also bound among themselves. The hierarchy of the courts is to be outlined, some courts may be bound by the earlier decisions which have been made in previous cases. As Carleton Kemp Allen said that whatever merits a precedent may possess, ‘certainty’ is the least to be followed. This means that the precedent need not be followed with all certainty, this is understandable as precedents are multiple, conflicts arising in the courts are also multiple here. This will only emerge from all the ‘authorities’, the lawyers are aware of the conflicting matters and to be dealt with individually if precedent cannot be applied.
Precedents bring flexibility to the legal system of India. The Supreme Court of India is not bound by its own earlier decisions. The rules settled by the Supreme Court in a particular subject matter remain in force unless they have not been overruled by the Supreme Court itself.
FAQs on Judicial Decisions as Principle Sources of Indian Law
1. What does it mean when we say judicial decisions are a source of law?
This means that the decisions made by judges in higher courts, such as the Supreme Court and High Courts, do more than just resolve a single dispute. They establish a legal rule or principle, known as a precedent. This precedent must then be followed by lower courts in future cases that have similar facts, making these decisions a form of judge-made law.
2. What is the doctrine of precedent, also known as 'stare decisis'?
The doctrine of precedent is the core legal principle that courts should follow the rules established in previous, similar cases. The Latin term for this is 'stare decisis', which means "to stand by things decided". This doctrine ensures that the law remains consistent, predictable, and fair, as similar situations are treated in the same legal manner.
3. What is the main difference between 'Ratio Decidendi' and 'Obiter Dicta' in a court judgment?
In any judgment, the 'Ratio Decidendi' is the essential legal reasoning that forms the basis of the court's final decision. This is the specific part that creates the legally binding precedent. In contrast, 'Obiter Dicta' (meaning "things said by the way") are other remarks or observations made by the judge that are not crucial to the decision. These are not binding on other courts but can be persuasive.
4. How do judicial decisions as a source of law differ from laws made by Parliament (statutes)?
The key difference is in their creation. Statutes are laws that are formally debated, written, and enacted by the legislature (like Parliament). They are created proactively to govern society. On the other hand, judicial decisions become law reactively, when a court interprets an existing statute or fills a legal gap while resolving a specific dispute. Statutes are pre-made rules, while judge-made law evolves from one case to another.
5. Can you give a simple example of how a judicial decision created a new legal rule?
A well-known example is the case of Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan. At the time, there was no specific law defining or preventing sexual harassment at the workplace. The Supreme Court's decision in this case created a set of binding rules, known as the 'Vishakha Guidelines', for all employers to follow. This judgment acted as the law of the land until Parliament formally enacted a statute on the subject in 2013.
6. Why is it so important for courts to follow previous decisions?
Following precedents is vital for a stable and trustworthy legal system. The primary benefits include:
- Certainty: It makes the law predictable, allowing people to understand their rights and obligations.
- Equality: It ensures that the law is applied fairly and consistently, treating everyone in similar situations alike.
- Efficiency: It saves the court's time and resources, as legal arguments that have already been settled do not need to be re-argued repeatedly.
7. How can a court avoid following a binding precedent from a past case?
A judge is not always forced to follow a precedent. The two main ways to avoid it are:
- Overruling: A higher court can declare that a precedent set by a lower court in a previous case was legally incorrect. This invalidates the old precedent and establishes a new one.
- Distinguishing: A judge can argue that the key facts of the current case are fundamentally different from the facts of the case that set the precedent. By 'distinguishing' the facts, the judge can reason that the old rule does not apply here.
