Doctrine of Stare Decisis meaning and scope

Doctrine of Stare Decisis

Like England the doctrine of Stare Decisis has been accepted under the Indian law

The doctrine of Stare Decisis is based on the maxim Stare Decisis et non quieta mauere which means to stand by precedent and not to disturb the settled point of law. In other words, judicial decisions have a binding force and enjoy status of law per se. 

The doctrine of Stare Decisis necessitates two conditions to be satisfied:-

1. A settled judicial hierarchy,and
2. There must be reliable report of cases

The​general principle on which the doctrine of Stare Decisis is based may be stated as follows:-

1. Each court is bound by the decision of higher court. 
2. To a certain extent higher courts are bound by their own decisions.
3. The decision of one high court has only a persuasive value on another High court and is not binding.but which they may take into consideration.
4. A single bench judge is bound by the decision of a division bench of the same high court. But a division bench judge is not bound to follow a decision of a single bench judge of the same high court. 

The​ simple reason behind the doctrine of Stare Decisis was that once the community accepts a precedent as authoritative law and rests its expectations on it, overturning it would cause grave inconvenience to the community. Therefore,it considered better in the interest of certainty and consistency to stand by the decision. 

Thus under the Stare Decisis rule,a principle of the law which has become settled by a series of decisions is generally binding on the courts and should be followed in similar cases. This rule is based on expediency and public policy.

Although this rule is generally followed by the courts it is not applicable in all cases because previous decisions should not be allowed to perpetuate a wrong if the court is convinced​ that the previous decision was wrongly decided.

However, the supreme court of India is not bound by its previous decision

Article 141 of the constitution of India provides that
"The law declared by the supreme court of India shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India."

Through the interpretation of different cases now it is clear that the term 'all courts' does not include the supreme court itself. Thus the supreme court is not bound by its previous decision and may in proper case reverse its previous decision.

In the leading Case of Bengal immunity co. vs State of Bihar the supreme court held that, there is nothing in the Indian constitution which prevents the supreme court departing from its previous decision if it is convinced of its error and its beneficial effect on the general interest of public

The doctrine of Stare Decisis the court said is not an inflexible rule of law and cannot be permitted to perpetuate the error of the supreme court to the detriment of the general welfare of the public.

Read More

4 Major Differences Between Ratio Decidendi And Obiter Dicta With Example

In our previous articles, we already discussed about ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. Now we will discuss the four major differences between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta.

4 major differences between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta are:

• Ratio decidendi may be described as a rule of law applied by and acted on by the court, or the rule which the court regarded as governing the case. An obiter dictum is a statement made by a judge in course of his judgment which may not be precisely relevant to the issues before him.

• The ratio decidendi has binding authority and is binding on subordinate courts. An obiter dictum has no such authority. It is a casual expression by the courts which carries no weight.

• According to Goodhart, the rule of law based on material facts is ratio decidendi. The rule of law based on mere hypothetical facts is obiter dicta.

• Ratio decidendi is a rule of law expressly or impliedly treated by the judge as a necessary step in reaching the conclusion. An obiter dictum is a rule of law stand by a judge which was neither expressly nor impliedly treated by him as a necessary step in reaching his conclusion.                                                     

The distinction between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta can better be understood by the following example.

In S.R. Bommai V. Union of India, the nine judges bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that secularism is one of the basic structures of the constitution of India.

Justice P.B. Sawant and Justice Kuldeep Singh observed that social pluralism is one of the basic structures. While Justice K. Ramaswamy observed that socialism, social justice and fraternity are included in the basic structure of the constitution.

The observations of the learned judges are obiter dicta as they are not directly in issue in the instant case. The ratio of the case is that secularism is one of the basic structures of the constitution of India 

Read More

Obiter dicta meaning

Obiter dicta or obiter dictum

Meaning- Pronouncement of law in the judgement, which are not part of the ratio decidendi are known as obiter dicta and they are not authoritative or binding on the subordinate courts. Obiter dicta means something said by the judge in the course giving judgement, which does not have any binding authority.

According to keeton, obiter dictum are observation made by the judge which are not essential for the decision reached.

Goodhart defines obiter dicta as "a conclusion based on fact the existence of which has not been determined by the courts".

In Jaiwant Rao  vs  State of Rajasthan the court observed that a dicta does not form the integral part of the chain or reasoning directed to the question decided may be regarded as ' obiter'.

In Marta Silva  vs.  Piederde  Cardoso, it was held that in the course of a suit many incidental questions arise indirectly connected with the main question for consideration, the observation on such question whether casual or of collateral relevance are known as 'obiter dicta'.

In the course of judgement,a judge may make various observations which are not precisely relevant to the issues before him.whatever said by the court by the way of the statements of law which lay down a rule but which is necessary for the purpose in hand are called obiter dicta.

Obiter dicta have the force of persuasive authority and are not binding upon the courts. The court may seek help from them but they are not bound to follow them.

Though obiter dicta is not considered as authoritative and lacks status of law, but it cannot be dismissed as insignificant. It may help to rationalize the law and also serve to suggest solution to problems not yet decided by the courts. It receives attention as being an option of higher authority

Read More

Ratio decidendi-meaning

Ratio decidendi

Ratio decidendi:-A judicial decision has a binding force for subsequent cases but the whole judgement is not binding, only a part of the judgement is binding.Only that part of the judgement in an earlier decision which is binding, constitute the ratio decidendi of that case.

'ratio decidendi'means reasoning factor behind the decision.The legal principles on which a case is decided by a court of law constitute the ratio decidendi of the case.

According to salmond, a precedent is a judicial decision which contains in itself a principle.The underlying​ principle which thus forms its authoritative element is often termed as ratio decidendi.

Keeton observed that, ratio decidendi of a case is the principle of law upon which judge based his judgement.

According to Goodheart, the ratio decidendi is to be found by taking into consideration all the facts treated as material by the judges who decided the case cited as a precedent, and of his decision was based on these facts.

The doctrine of precedent, can be understood by following examples,

In the leading Case of   Bridges  vs  Hawksworth,  a customer found some money on the floor of a shop.The court applied the rule of finder keepers and awarded the possession of money to the customer instead of the shopkeeper.The ratio decidendi of the case is that finder of the goods is the keeper.

The ratio decidendi of the famous  Donoghue  vs  Stevenson case was that it originated the doctrine of privity of contact and held the manufacturer liable to consumer for his negligence in manufacturing goods which is of such a nature that it is incapable of intermediate inspection by retailer. Thus the plaintiff was held entitled for damages caused to her due to decomposed snail inside the ginger beer which was being sold in opaque bottle.

Read More