LAW of PRECEDENTS-By Thiru M.S. Krishnan, Senior Advocate

8/12/2019 LAW of PRECEDENTS-By Thiru M.S. Krishnan, Senior Advocate

1/17

Presented by Mr. M.S.Krishnan, Senior AdvocatPresented by Mr. M.S.Krishnan, Senior Advocat


2/17


LAW OF PRECEDENS

A !recedent is a !revio"s instance or case #hich $"rnishes ane%a&!'e or r"'e $or s"bse("ent cond"ct, and a !attern "!on #hichs"bse("ent cond"ct is based. ) Dias, Jurisprudence, 2nd Edn.

E'e&ents o$ a !recedent )

*a+ Concrete decision ) bindin "!on !arties

*b+ Abstract Princi!'e ) bindin as an a"thority on a s"bse("ent-"de.

Precedents &ay be divided in the $o''o#in &anner, accordin toSa'&ond )

A"thoritative !recedents ) a -"de is bo"nd to $o''o#.

/ 'ea' so"rces o$ 'a#.

Pers"asive !recedents ) -"d&ents o$ $orein

co"rts, -"dicia dicta anddecisions o$ the Privy Co"nci'#hen it decides a!!ea' cases$ro& co'onies.

/ historica' so"rces o$ 'a#.


3/17


01SOR1CAL 2ROW0 OF 0E S3SEM OF PRECEDENS 1N01SOR1CAL 2ROW0 OF 0E S3SEM OF PRECEDENS 1N

EN2LANDEN2LAND

1nitia''y bean beca"se &edieva' -"des considered the&se'veschared #ith the d"ty o$ ascertainin and dec'arin and en$orcinconte&!orary c"sto&s and "saes.

4y the 56th cent"ry, it beca&e an intera' !art o$ the co&&on 'a#syste&. Lord Mansfieldhad conso'idated and rea$$ir&ed the doctrineo$ -"dicia' consistency, and dec'ared ) 7La# does not consist o$!artic"'ar cases, b"t o$ enera' !rinci!'es8.

4y the 59th cent"ry, Lord Tenterden C.J.) :Decisions o$ o"r!redecessors, the -"des o$ $or&er ti&es, o"ht to be $o''o#ed andado!ted "n'ess #e can see very c'ear'y that they are erroneo"s, $orother#ise there #i'' be no certainty in the ad&inistration o$ 'a#.;

Prof. Holdsworth in the


4/17


01ERAC03 OF A>0OR13 FOR OPERA1ON OFPRECEDENS 1N EN2LAND

0o"se o$ Lords0o"se o$ Lords 4o"nd by its o#n decisions.4o"nd by its o#n decisions. 1ts decisions bind a'' co"rts be'o# it.1ts decisions bind a'' co"rts be'o# it. Not bo"nd #hen decision is &ade in inorance o$ stat"te, or #hereNot bo"nd #hen decision is &ade in inorance o$ stat"te, or #here

the !rinci!'e is obsc"re, or #here it is o"t o$ 'ine #ith estab'ishedthe !rinci!'e is obsc"re, or #here it is o"t o$ 'ine #ith estab'ished!rinci!'es and other a"thorities. ?Decided in!rinci!'es and other a"thorities. ?Decided in Scr"ttons Ltd. @.Mid'andScr"ttons Ltd. @.Mid'andSi'icones Ltd. ) *59


5/17


Co"rt o$ Cri&ina' A!!ea' 4o"nd by its o#n !revio"s decisions 4o"nd by those o$ its !redecessors. Not bo"nd by decisions o$ the Co"rt o$ A!!ea' Not bo"nd by its o#n decisions #hen /

A decision not ar"ed on both sides A decision that invo'ves 'iberty o$ the citiens #hich is o$ "t&ost

i&!ortance. 0ih Co"rt

Creates a bindin !recedent $or a'' 'o#er co"rts. 1n case o$ an ear'ier decision o$ the sa&e 0ih Co"rt by a bench o$

e("a' strenth, deter&ination sho"'d be by bench o$ reater strenth. Present 0ih Co"rts not bo"nd by decisions o$ o'd co"rts o$ co/ordinate

-"risdiction, a'tho"h they have !ers"asive va'"e. Divisiona' Co"rt Carries reater #eiht than the decisions o$ a !"isne -"de, b"t cannot

overr"'e that. Since recent'y, bo"nd by its o#n decisions.


6/17


DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT IN INDIA A BRITISH LEGACY

Pre/1nde!endence Accordin to S.


7/17


CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS REGARDING PRECEDENTS OF

THE SC SCOPE OF Art. 141

Art. 5B5 states, :he 'a# dec'ared by the SC sha'' be bindin on a''

co"rts #ithin the territory o$ 1ndia.

he SC -"de&ents as bet#een the 'itiants are decisions, as to thenation, they are dec'aratory o$ the 'a# ) A1R 596= SC


8/17


0o#ever a decision is a !recedent on'y #hen it decides a ("estion0o#ever a decision is a !recedent on'y #hen it decides a ("estiono$ 'a# and not other#ise )o$ 'a# and not other#ise ) 599< *5+ SLR GGH*SC+599< *5+ SLR GGH*SC+Decisions o$ theDecisions o$ theSC as to as to $acts cannot be cited as !recedents )SC as to as to $acts cannot be cited as !recedents ) A1R 59= SCA1R 59= SC59H59H

he 0C in the na&e o$ inter!retin the -"de&ent o$ the SC cannothe 0C in the na&e o$ inter!retin the -"de&ent o$ the SC cannotsit in a!!ea' and &odi$y it )sit in a!!ea' and &odi$y it ) A1R 596 SC 5BHHA1R 596 SC 5BHH

he SC sho"'d not &aJe any !rono"nce&ent on any ("estionhe SC sho"'d not &aJe any !rono"nce&ent on any ("estion#hich is not strict'y necessary $or the dis!osa' o$ the !artic"'ar case#hich is not strict'y necessary $or the dis!osa' o$ the !artic"'ar casebe$ore it /be$ore it / A1R 59H9 SC 5B9A1R 59H9 SC 5B9

1n the case o$1n the case o$ A1R 596= SC


9/17


ELEMENTS OF A JUDGEMENT RATIO DECIDENDI AND OBITER

DICTA RA1O DEC1DEND1 he dictionary &eanin o$ this Latin e%!ression, is the 7r"'e o$ 'a# on

#hich a -"dicia' decision is &ade8, or 7reason $or decidin8.

Every decision has G basic !ost"'ates )iv. Findins o$ $acts both direct and in$erentia'

v. State&ent o$ !rinci!'es a!!'icab'e to the 'ea' !rob'e&s as disc'osed by$acts

vi. "de&ent based on the co&bined e$$ect o$ the above.

o consider the ratio decidendi o$ a case, the SC has to ascertain the!rinci!'e "!on #hich it #as decided. his is so&eti&es di$$ic"'t in cases#here diverent vie#s are e%!ressed by di$$erent -"des, b"t event"a''ythe $ina' decision is taJen.

A decision is bindin not beca"se o$ its conc'"sion, b"t in reard to itsratio and the !rinci!'e 'aid do#n therein. 2enera' state&ents &ade

beyond the ratio decidendi have &ere !ers"asive va'"e on'y. his #ashe'd in *599+ SCC BB.

A case is on'y an a"thority $or #hat it decides, and not $ro& #hat'oica''y $o''o#s $ro& it ) he'd in A1R 59 SC 5=G

A'tho"h the decidendi can be a!!'ied to si&i'ar cases on basis o$ $act

and 'a#, the SC has said that care &"st be taJen to ens"re that it is nota!!'ied &echanica''y.


10/17


O41ER D1CA Obiter dictais a !ud"e#s e$pression of opinion uttered in court, or while

"i%in" !ud"e&ent, but not essential to the decision and not part of theratio decidendi.#

1t a'so &eans an incidenta' re&arJ, or so&ethin said in !assin. Nor&a''y, even an obiter dict"& is e%!ected to be obeyed and $o''o#ed.he obiter dicta o$ the SC are entit'ed to considerab'e #eiht ) A1R 599HSC 5


11/17


PER 1NC>R1AM

'ncuria#'itera''y &eans 7carelessness8 and the !hrase 7!er inc"ria&8 is"sed to describe -"d&ents that are de'ivered #ith inorance o$ so&estat"te or r"'e.

1t is #e''/sett'ed in the En'ish doctrine o$ !recedents that a -"de&entrendered in inorance o$ a stat"te, or a r"'e havin stat"tory $orce, #hich#o"'d have a$$ected the res"'t is not bindin on a co"rt other#ise bo"ndby its o#n decisions. 1n London Street raays Co. v. London Co"ntyCo"nci' ) *5696+ AC GH, the 0o"se o$ Lords reconied that s"ch a-"d&ent #as an e%ce!tion to the r"'e that the 0o"se o$ Lords #asabso'"te'y bo"nd by its o#n -"d&ents.

he sa&e e%ce!tion #as reconied by the Co"rt o$ A!!ea' in the 4risto'Aero!'ane case ) *59BB+ 5K4 56. he co"rt ave the e%!'anation :1tcannot be riht to say that in s"ch a case the co"rt is entit'ed todisreard the stat"tory !rovision and is bo"nd to $o''o# a decision o$ itso#n #hen that !rovision #as not !resent to its &ind. Cases o$ thisdescri!tion are e%a&!'es o$ decisions iven !er inc"ria&.;

he Co"rt o$ A!!ea' in More''e Ltd v WaJe'in ?59HH 5 A'' ER =6,?59HH < 4 G9stated that as a enera' r"'e the on'y cases in #hichdecisions sho"'d be he'd to have been iven !er inc"ria& are those o$decisions iven in inorance or $oret$"'ness o$ so&e inconsistentstat"tory !rovision or o$ so&e a"thority bindin on the co"rt concernedso that in s"ch cases so&e !art o$ the decision or so&e ste! in thereasonin on #hich it is based is $o"nd, on that acco"nt, to be

de&onstrab'y #ron.


12/17


A decision is iven !er inc"ria& #hen the co"rt has actedA decision is iven !er inc"ria& #hen the co"rt has acted 1n inorance o$ a !revio"s decision o$ its o#n or o$ a co"rt o$ co/1n inorance o$ a !revio"s decision o$ its o#n or o$ a co"rt o$ co/

ordinate -"risdiction #hi'e covered the case be$ore it, in #hich case itordinate -"risdiction #hi'e covered the case be$ore it, in #hich case it&"st decide #hich case to $o''o#, or&"st decide #hich case to $o''o#, or

When it has acted in inorance o$ a 0o"se o$ Lords decision, inWhen it has acted in inorance o$ a 0o"se o$ Lords decision, in#hich case it &"st $o''o# that decision or#hich case it &"st $o''o# that decision or

When the decision is iven in inorance o$ the ter&s o$ a stat"te orWhen the decision is iven in inorance o$ the ter&s o$ a stat"te orr"'e havin stat"tory $orce.r"'e havin stat"tory $orce.

A decision sho"'d not be treated as iven !er inc"ria&, ho#ever,A decision sho"'d not be treated as iven !er inc"ria&, ho#ever,si&!'y beca"se o$ a de$iciency o$ !arties, or beca"se the Co"rt hadsi&!'y beca"se o$ a de$iciency o$ !arties, or beca"se the Co"rt hadnot the bene$it o$ the best ar"&ent, and, as a enera' r"'e, the on'ynot the bene$it o$ the best ar"&ent, and, as a enera' r"'e, the on'ycases in #hich decisions sho"'d be he'd to be iven !er inc"ria&cases in #hich decisions sho"'d be he'd to be iven !er inc"ria&are those iven in inorance o$ so&e inconsistent stat"te or bindinare those iven in inorance o$ so&e inconsistent stat"te or bindina"thority. Even i$ a decision o$ the Co"rt o$ A!!ea' hasa"thority. Even i$ a decision o$ the Co"rt o$ A!!ea' has&isinter!reted a !revio"s decision o$ the 0o"se o$ Lords, the Co"rt&isinter!reted a !revio"s decision o$ the 0o"se o$ Lords, the Co"rto$ A!!ea' &"st $o''o# its !revio"s decision and 'eave the 0o"se o$o$ A!!ea' &"st $o''o# its !revio"s decision and 'eave the 0o"se o$Lords to recti$y the &istaJe.Lords to recti$y the &istaJe.

he 'a# is the sa&e in 1ndia, and a -"d&ent rendered in inorancehe 'a# is the sa&e in 1ndia, and a -"d&ent rendered in inoranceo$ a re'evant constit"tiona' or stat"tory !rovision is not bindin "!ono$ a re'evant constit"tiona' or stat"tory !rovision is not bindin "!onany co"rt in 1ndia. his !rinci!'e has been acce!ted by the SC inany co"rt in 1ndia. his !rinci!'e has been acce!ted by the SC insevera' cases inc'"dinsevera' cases inc'"din *5966+ < SCC =


13/17


DOCR1NE OF SARE DEC1S1SDOCR1NE OF SARE DEC1S1S

he dictionary &eanin o$ this !hrase is :the 'ea' !rinci!'e o$ deter&inin

!oints in 'itiation accordin to !recedent;

he doctrine o$ stare decisis is invoJed #hen the reversa' o$ a decision,

$o''o#ed $or a considerab'e 'enth o$ ti&e, is 'iJe'y to serio"s'y e&barrass

those #ho had, re'yin "!on its !artic"'ar inter!retation o$ a stat"te, #o"'d

$ind the&se'ves $r"strated by a di$$erent inter!retation.

he co"rt sho"'d as $ar as !ossib'e sticJ to the doctrine o$ stare decisis.

One o$ the chie$ reasons is that a &atter that has once been $"''y ar"ed

and decided sho"'d not be a''o#ed to be reo!ened.

0o#ever, this is not a "niversa' co&&and. 1$ the r"'e #ere to be $o''o#ed

b'ind'y, it #o"'d st"nt chane, and the ro#th o$ society. Where !"b'ic

interest is invoJed, and #here the ("estion is one o$ constit"tiona'

constr"ction, the doctrine &ay be de!arted $ro&) A1R 59HG SC


14/17


1MPORANCE OF D1SSEN1N2 >D2EMENS he i&!ortance o$ dissentin -"de&ents #as disc"ssed in detai' in

the En'ish case o$ S&ith v. Centra' Asbestos Co. Ltd ) *59G+ AC

H56*a'so ca''ed the Dodd8s case+, and 'ater in the case o$ 1n Re

0ar!er v. NC4 ) *59B+ < WLR H. 1n the Dodd8s case, Lord

Dennin stated that 7We can on'y re'y "!on the reasonin #hich the

&a-ority re'ied "!on to de'iver the -"d&ent. We cannot "se the

reasonin o$ the &inority, beca"se it &"st be #ron, as they have

co&e to the #ron -"d&ent8. he reason behind this is that, a

dissentin -"d&ent va'"ab'e and i&!ortant, tho"h it &ay cannot

co"nt as !art o$ the ratio, $or it !'ayed no !art in the co"rt8s reachintheir decision. his o!inion o$ Lord Dennin as been reat'y criticised.

We ado!t a di$$erent !rinci!'e in 1ndia, reardin the i&!ortance o$

dissentin -"d&ents. Art. 5BH o$ the Constit"tion c'ear'y ives -"des

the !o#er to di$$er $ro& the &a-ority and de'iver their o#n -"d&ent,

#hi'e a n"&ber o$ cases thro"h the years have estab'ished thata'tho"h dissentin -"d&ents are not bindin "!on the co"rt, they

have reat !ers"asive va'"e.

When there is on'y one ("estion be$ore the Co"rt, #here the -"des

aree on a enera' !rinci!'e o$ 'a#, b"t di$$er as to its s!eci$ic

a!!'ication in the case, the ratio o$ the case &"st be identi$ied andthat a'one is bindin .


15/17


1n the De'hi La#s case ) *59HH+ 5 SCR


16/17


LANDMARK CASES WHERE THE SUPREME COURT HAS LAID DOWN NEWLANDMARK CASES WHERE THE SUPREME COURT HAS LAID DOWN NEW

GUIDING PRINCIPLESGUIDING PRINCIPLES

@ishaJa case ) A1R 599 SC G=55

he SC 'aid do#n "ide'ines $or the !revention o$ se%"a' harrass&ent o$#o&en at the #orJ!'ace and reco&&ended that the ovt enact a 'a# $or

the sa&e. S"ch 'a# havin not yet co&e into $orce, ti'' date, the "ide'inesiven by the co"rt in this case are bein considered as havin the $orce o$'eis'ation.

M.C.Mehta v. >O1 ) A1R 596 SC 5=6

he co"rt 'aid do#n a ne# r"'e o$ strict and abso'"te 'iabii'ty in res!ect o$haardo"s and inherent'y danereo"s activities. his conce!t #as initia''y

born in En'and in the case o$ Ry'ands v. F'etcher ) *566+ LR G 0L GG=. @ineet Narain v. >O1 / *5996+ 5 SCC


17/17


CIRCUMSTANCES WEAKENING THE BINDING FORCE OF

PRECEDENTS

5. Reversa'

Documents

LAW of PRECEDENTS-By Thiru M.S. Krishnan, Senior Advocate