Aadesh Ramadorai
‘What has once been settled by a precedent will not be unsettled overnight, for certainty and uniformity are gains not lightly sacrificed.’ – Benjamin N. Cardozo (1921).
‘Stare decisis’ is a Latin maxim which translates ‘to stand by that which is decided.’ It is also known as the ‘Rule of Precedents.’ Every Court’s interpretation of law is binding on all Judicial bodies lower in hierarchy to it as well as itself.
Similarly, this doctrine applies to Judges of a particular Court with regards to the quorum (number of judges at the hearing) dealing with the case. A 2-Judge Bench is bound by all decisions of that Court rendered by Benches with a larger quorum as well as all other 2 Judge Benches. This concept is commonly referred to as Judicial Discipline and was very recently alluded to in the ongoing Arnab Goswami case.
Art.141 of the Constitution propounds that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on the Indian Judiciary. Though the Judiciary is inferior to the legislature in the process of law ‘making,’ its interpretation of such law is what is actually binding. Thus, the word ‘declared’ means Judicial interpretation of law is obligatory & not law ‘made’ by it per se.
All such decisions taken are what form precedents in law. Ultimately, law is refined by Judicial activism and not constant amendments and new legislations adopted by the legislature, which is why it is so important to make the results of Judicial activism obligatory on lower Courts.
Moving on, only portions of judgements that deal with the interpretation of law are enforceable and not those which analyze fact. To comprehend this, the famous Shayaro Bano case is considered. In this case, a woman sued her husband for instantly divorcing her via the ‘triple talaq’ method for no valid or legal reason whatsoever.
In the first portion of the judgement, it was held that triple talaq is illegal and the second portion directed the husband to compensate her. The first portion (ratio decidendi) is the binding part of that judgement and the second portion holds no such precedential value.
Commentaires