STARE DECISIS

Submitted by,
Adv. HIMA GEORGE
LL.M, Govt.Law College, Thrissur
INTRODUCTION
CONCEPT
• 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.
MEANING
• The doctrine of stare decisis is a legal doctrine to follow the previous
case rulings with similar facts and issues. Stare Decisis means to stand
by which is decided and the literal sense can be used interchangeably.
The prior ruling or judgment is known as precedent. Stare Decisis is
that courts look into precedents of the courts when the case pending
before the court with similar circumstances.
• When a court laid down a principle of law to a certain number of
facts, it shall apply to future cases with substantial facts. It is to
maintain efficiency, stability and continuity in law. It helps in the
integrity of our Constitutional System of government in appearance
and facts.
• Sec.141 of the Constitution of India deals with the law declared by the
Supreme Court to be binding on all courts which states the law
declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within
the territory. The Supreme Court is not bound by its decision and may
in proper case reverse its previous decisions.
ORIGIN
• Further, the Doctrine or Principle of Stare Decisis stems from various
Latin Maxims and with time, various connotations have been attached
to it. In earlier times, the prevalent maxim was “stare rationibus
decidendis” that literally means to keep to the ratio decidendi of past
cases. Basically, a case is only authority for what it actually decides.
Later on, this view got modified and the judiciary has now moved on
to another maxim, “stare decisis et non quieta movere” that means “to
stand by the things decided, and not to disturb settled points” or “to
adhere to precedents, and not to depart from established principles.”
DEFINITION
• Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition defines
Stare Decisis thus:
"Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow
historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case. Stare decisis
ensures that cases with similar scenarios and facts are approached in
the same way. Simply put, it binds courts to follow legal precedents
set by previous decisions."
HISTORY
• Stare decisis has its origins in Greece, Rome, and Egypt, where judges
looked to previous decisions for guidance on how to interpret new
cases that they faced. It was also in Medieval England and America
under the Common Law system. It was codified for the first time as
part of English common law. English judges like Henry De Bracton
wrote a treatise that supported the idea of this legal precedent in 1256.
From 1500, courts began the following precedence as an obligatory
practice.
• This was further popularized by English judge Sir Edward Coke, who
wrote a thirteen-volume treatise called “The Reports”, which was
about the importance of legal precedent.
• The doctrine of stare decisis appears to not have existed in India during
ancient or medieval times. As the British rule in the country came into
force, the principle of binding precedent became applicable in India. The
British Rule led to the division of courts and the reporting of decisions,
which are the two prerequisites for the Stare Decisis. Dorin put forward
the adoption of the doctrine of Stare Decisis in India, in 1813.
• The British Rule led to the setting up of the Supreme Courts at Calcutta,
Bombay and Madras, and Sardar Diwani Adalats. The High Court Act
was enacted to provide for the establishment of High Courts by the issue
of letters patent, in 1861. These courts had original as well as appellate
jurisdiction. And so, a hierarchy of courts was established.
• When the Government of India Act of 1935 was enacted, the decisions
of the Privy Council and the Federal court binding on all Courts in
British India gave statutory recognition to the doctrine of stare decisis.
The Federal courts were not bound by their own judgments. After
independence, the doctrine of precedence continues to be followed in
the country, under Article 141.
• The Supreme Court’s “law declared” is obligatory in all courts in
India, according to Article 141 of the Indian Constitution. The term
‘law declared’ refers to the Supreme Court’s law-making function.
And thus, the doctrine of Stare Decisis was adopted in India.
Characteristics of Stare Decisis

1.Binding Precedent: Think of a rule in a game that everyone must follow. When a court
makes a decision, it's like creating a rule for that specific situation. Other courts, particularly
lower ones, should then follow that rule in similar situations.

2.Hierarchy of Rules: Legal system hierarchy is often compared to a tower with various
levels. At the top, the highest court establishes the most significant rules that lower courts
must adhere to. Appellate courts, positioned in the middle, create rules that trial courts,
located at the bottom level, are obligated to follow.

3.Making Exceptions: There are instances where the current circumstances differ from those
when a particular rule was established. In such cases, a court may conclude that the situation
is distinct from previous rulings and therefore not bound by the old rule.
4.Updating the Rules:
In cases where a court deems an outdated rule to be fundamentally flawed,
they have the authority to declare, "We will no longer adhere to this rule."
This is akin to modifying the rules of a game that were deemed nonsensical.

5.Ensuring Fairness:
Maintaining fairness and predictability within the legal system is crucial,
and Stare Decisis is the key. Individuals gain clarity when cases are handled
consistently, which informs them of what to expect from the law.
EXCEPTIONS
• It is clear that the principle of stare decisis does stem from the
principle of precedent. But we must not see these principles and
doctrines in isolation. Sometimes an earlier precedent is followed and
sometimes a new precedent is laid down. But what about the cases
where the doctrine of precedent or stare decisis are not followed. The
exception to the principles of precedent and stare decisis is the concept
of “overruling.” To overrule means “to overturn or set aside a
precedent by expressly deciding that it should no longer be
controlling law.” When a precedent is overruled, it becomes “null
and void, like a repealed statute, and a new principle is
authoritatively substituted for the old.”
ADVANTAGES
• The doctrine of Stare Decisis reduces the need for successive litigation
and it further saves time and energy of the judiciary as it is not
required to determine the same question of law or any legal issue
repeatedly if it has been previously settled in some other case.
• When it comes to deciding a question of law it is often witnessed that
there is a huge possibility of arbitrariness and bias trying to creep in.
The doctrine of Stare Decisis curbs such unwanted and vicious
elements from affecting fair and reasonable adjudication by obligating
the judges to abide by the established precedents thereby preventing
any kind of arbitrariness or bias.
• The element of predictability is one of the primary needs in the efficient
functioning of a judicial system. The doctrine of Stare Decisis thus
ensures that the judgements given by the courts are predictable thereby
boosting the confidence of the people in the judicial system.
• The doctrine of Stare Decisis inculcates flexibility in the law. It can
further be said that, by the virtue of the said doctrine, the law is moulded
as per the social, cultural, economic and other circumstances.
• The doctrine of Stare Decisis also brings stability, certainty and
consistency in the law. The said doctrine not only helps in the smooth
operation of the judiciary but also records the application of law in
deciding cases.
CASE LAWS
Case 1.
Bengal Immunity Co. V. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661.
Held - There is nothing in the Indian Constitution that prevents the Supreme Court
from overruling the previous decision if there is any errors and its beneficial effect
on the general interest of the public.
Case 2. United Motors V. State of Bombay, AIR 1953 SC 352.
Held - The stare decisis is not an inflexible rule of law and cannot be permitted to
perpetuate errors of the Supreme Court to the detriment of the general welfare of the
public. The doctrine has hardly any application to an isolated and stray decision of
the court very recently made and not followed by a series of decision based thereon .
Case 3.
Golaknath V. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643.
Held - The Supreme Court reversed its decision and held that the
power to amend the Fundamental Rights is not found in Art. 368 but in
the residuary power of Legislation.
Case 4. Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. V. Regional Asstt. CST, (1976) 4
SCC 124.
Held - The doctrine of stare decisis is a very valuable principle of
precedent which cannot be departed from unless there are extraordinary
or special reasons to do so.
 Case 5. Waman Rao V. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC.
Held - It sufficient for invoking the rule of stare decisis that a certain
decision was arrived at on a question that arose or was argued, no matter
on what reason the decision was pronounced. In other words, to apply
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.
Case 6. Union of India & Anr. V. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd., (1990) 4
SCC 453.
Held - The doctrine of stare decisis is the need for continuity, certainty
• and predictability in the administration of justice. If the persons affected by the
decisions of tribunals or courts have a right to expect that those exercising judicial
functions will follow the reason or ground of the judicial decision in the earlier
cases on similar matters. It has been stated that in the absence of a strict rule of
precedent, litigants would take every case to the highest court, in spite of a ruling
to the contrary the decision may be overruled.
Case 7. Shanker Raju V. Union Of India, 2011 SCC 2 132.
• Held - 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”. The underlying logic of this doctrine is to maintain consistency and avoid
uncertainty.The doctrine shall not be disturbed only because another view is
possible.
Case 8. Desiya Murpokku Dravida V. Election Commission of India,
AIR 2012 SC 2191.
Held - There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the Supreme
Court from departing from the previous decision of its own if it is
satisfied with its error and of its harmful effect on the general interest of
the public.
Case 9. Rashmi Metaliks Limited And Another V. Kolkata Metropolitan
DevelopmentAuthority And Others, 2013 BC 4 244
Held - The law of precedence and of stare decisis is predicated on the
wisdom and salubrity of providing a firmly founded law, without which
 uncertainty and ambiguity would cause consternation in society. It garners legal
predictability, which simply stated, is essential.
Case 10. Narinder Singh And Others V. State Of Punjab And Another, 2014 AIR SC
2065
Held - The law declared by this Court in the form of judgments becomes a binding
precedent for the High Courts and the subordinate courts, to follow under Article
141 of the Constitution of India. Stare decisis is the fundamental principle of
judicial decision-making which requires “certainty” too in law so that in a given set
of facts the course of action which law shall take is discernible and predictable.
Unless that is achieved, the very doctrine of stare decisis will lose its significance.
The related objective of the doctrine of stare decisis is to put a curb on the personal
preferences and priors of individual Judges.