Limitation of Precedents as a Source of Law

The notion of precedent and the principle of stare decisis, which emphasises that earlier court decisions should inform future judgements, have influenced the development of legal systems across the world.[1] This procedure guarantees continuity and uniformity in the law.

According to John Austin, court precedents shape the law and provide final judgement in subsequent instances. [2]The doctrine of precedent is used in many legal systems to apply precedents, which are new rules established by rulings. To guarantee justice, uniformity, and predictability, lawyers refer to prior judicial decisions.

ILL. Without James’ consent, Bond takes his bicycle, unintentionally wrecks it, and then stealthily gives it back. Bond is ordered by the court to pay for repairs but not a new bike, setting a precedent. As a result of this precedent, similar instances in the future must adhere to the same rule, holding unauthorised borrowers responsible for damages.[3]

However, this system’s seeming perfection masks a complicated web of constraints that might impede its efficiency and ability to uphold the law. This study examines these restrictions and shows how they make it difficult for the legal system to change to fit a changing society. Although it promotes stability, the notion of precedent can occasionally result in rigidity, uniformity, and unfairness. In order to provide light on the limitations of utilising precedents as a source of law in a changing world, this essay analyses these complex topics.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

The objective of this research paper is threefold:

Cirmumstances weakening the binding force of precedents:The main goal of this study is to completely identify and classify the numerous factors that reduce the power and effectiveness of judicial precedents in the Indian legal system.
Analyzing Problems Arising from Precedents as a Source of Law.

The primary purpose of this research is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the issues that arise from relying on precedents as a source of law. By critically examining the limitations and drawbacks inherent in this practice

LITERTURE REVIEW

AYUSHMAN CHOUSKEY,1 JUNE 2022,”PRECEDENT AS A SOURCE OF LAW AND ITS IMPORTANCE IN TODAY’S WORLD”:-[4]
This article emphasizes precedent’s dual role in shaping legal systems while addressing its complexities and potential drawbacks. A judge’s instrument, precedent, entails creating new rules that direct cases in the future for lesser courts. In English legal systems, it is regarded as a source of law. Different definitions of precedent, ranging from recorded case law to authoritative court decisions, are provided by academics including Salmond, Keeton, and Grey. The stare decisis theory upholds final judgements for a stable judicial system by relying on authority and trustworthy case records. Differentiating between precedents that make new law or apply established rules is called an original precedent. Precedent authority and persuasiveness are described, with persuasive precedents permitting flexibility and authoritative precedents constraining subordinate courts. The ideas of obiter dicta (incidental remarks) and ratio decidendi (basic principle) are addressed. It is investigated how precedent is used in India, particularly as it relates to Article 141. It is looked at if judges have the authority to review judgements and whether lower courts follow their judgements.
Michel Johnson,Hein Online,” Posner on the Uses and Disadvantages of Precedents for Law”:-[5]
Posner’s “judicial pragmatist” opposes rigid adherence to precedents and favours judgements that are in line with the situation at hand in order to combat precedent rigidity in a fluid legal environment.

Posner’s pragmatism supports flexible legislation that puts future demands ahead of blind precedent adherence. To avoid upholding outmoded ideas, pragmatic judges interpret precedents as instructive guides rather than as binding rules. They critically assess historical precedents, taking current requirements into account and averting injustices.Posner’s method strikes a balance between the law and the facts, addressing unfair results from strict precedent adherence because of changing realities.

Posner’s distinction between positivists and pragmatists reshapes the use of precedents by supporting nuanced relevance judgement. It promotes a just legal system that considers the past, present, and future.

Stanford Encyclopedia, 20 June 2006,”Precedent and analogy of legal Reasoning”:-[6]
Precedent and analogy are essential tools in institutionalised legal systems for striking a balance between predictability and moral advancement. In contrast to individual decision-making, where personal aspects are taken into account, they direct formal legal reasoning by offering an organised method. Precedent provides predictability with flexibility for differentiation in systems with various decision-makers and a variety of legal sources, whereas analogies provide guidance for circumstances without providing a clear-cut answer.

These techniques will only be effective if decision-makers have same legal beliefs, which are fostered through legal education, the professional environment, and judicial choice. Dynamics within the legal system support the consensus. Courts encourage adherence to commonly accepted ideas and principles because they are aware that their rulings might be challenged or overturned.Within institutionalised legal systems, stability, predictability, and development are ensured by precedent, analogy, and accepted legal ideals.

John A. Smith, “Precedent and Legal Reasoning: A Comparative Study[7]“:-
John A. Smith’s article delves into the role of precedents in legal reasoning, comparing their significance in different legal systems. The author examines how precedents contribute to the development and coherence of legal principles while maintaining flexibility for adapting to changing circumstances. Smith investigates the challenges posed by rigid adherence to precedent and explores the mechanisms that various legal systems employ to strike a balance between consistency and legal evolution. Through comparative analysis, the article sheds light on how different jurisdictions approach the use of precedents, revealing the intricate interplay between stability and adaptability within the context of legal reasoning.
Emily R. Johnson, “The Binding Precedent: Its Nature and Limits”:-[8]

Emily R. Johnson’s work offers a comprehensive examination of the nature and boundaries of binding precedent within the legal framework. The article critically assesses the weight of binding precedents and their impact on judicial decision-making. Johnson explores the concept of precedent as a source of law and investigates instances where courts might deviate from established precedents. Through an in-depth analysis of relevant case law and legal scholarship, the author provides insights into the tensions between precedent’s role in maintaining stability and its potential to hinder the evolution of the law. The article contributes to the ongoing discourse on the limitations and advantages of relying on binding precedents as a source of law.

ANANLYSIS

Cirmumstances weakening the binding force of precedents.

According to Article 141, [9]the Supreme Court’s decisions are binding on all courts that fall under India’s territorial jurisdiction. The idea stated in Article 141 emphasises that incidental statements (obiter dicta) and the case circumstances are not binding, and that the ratio decidendi, or fundamental legal principle, of a case should serve as the guiding principle. As a result, subordinate courts that desire to adopt or implement a Supreme Court judgement must tailor the legal theory it established to the particulars of their case.

Abrogated Decisions:
If a later legislation conflicts with a precedent or if it is overturned or reversed by a higher court, the precedent loses its legal significance. A legislation supersedes a precedent when they are at odds, maintaining consistency with the existing legal system.
1. Defying the Binding Nature in Per Incuriam:

The per incuriam concept covers situations where a court’s judgement disregards or fails to consider established legal principles, binding precedents, or even earlier contradictory decisions of higher courts. This goes beyond just overlooking legislation. Because it deviates from accepted legal principles, a precedent delivered per incuriam loses its force. To qualify a decision as per incuriam, however, it is required to show that sustaining it will cause grave annoyance or injustice in addition to identifying a plain mistake.

The court’s subsequent rulings in cases like Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra,[10] Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal[11], and Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar and Another [12]conflict with the ruling of a Constitution Bench in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State of Punjab [13]. The argument is that the principles established in the Sibbia case conflict with these subsequent rulings.
The claim made is that judgements like Sibbia’s case, which depart from the guidelines of an earlier authoritative decision, may be labelled as “per incuriam.” Per incuriam decisions are ones that are made without considering a binding precedent or a pertinent statutory requirement. Per incuriam designations indicate that a decision is not final and should be disregarded.

There is a claim that the Constitution Bench’s judgement must take precedence over later decisions issued by benches with less authority if their conclusions are incompatible and an irreconcilable disagreement arises. This is in line with the idea that choices made by bigger benches should be given more weight.

Sub Silentio (Unargued Decisions):
The phrase “precedents sub silentio,” which describes circumstances in which a legal issue that is essential to a judgement is not acknowledged or addressed by the court. Additionally, it emphasises how a judgement may concentrate on one point (A) while ignoring another (B), resulting in the latter passing sub silentio, when a case comprises numerous points.[14]
The problem of decisions being made without providing the losing party with adequate representation. It emphasises that when parties aren’t properly represented, there’s no assurance that the court will be made aware of all pertinent factors. Therefore, even if they do not violate the sub silentio criterion, such judgements shouldn’t be regarded as final authority.Even if a precedent had weak justification, was not given enough thought, or was founded on faulty logic, these deficiencies do not automatically invalidate it. However, the precedent’s legitimacy is compromised by the complete lack of justification.A decision has authority solely for the things it directly chooses, not for any possible distant or logical effects.

In M/s. Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana [15]and another supports the idea that a decision without proper argumentation may not stand as a binding precedent. Rajpur Ruda Meha and others v. State of Gujarat [16]emphasize that observations on unargued questions do not hold as binding precedents.

Differentiating Cases:
To avoid unfavourable precedents, judges may distinguish cases based on subtleties in the facts or distinctive legal grounds. Only when the legal principle and the relevant factual background match up with the current situation is a precedent considered binding.

In Union of India and another v. K.S. Subramanian [17]– The Court said that it did not believe the opinions of the bigger benches of this Court applied to the facts of the current case and should have provided reasons for that conclusion.

Overruling

An earlier decision’s authority can be prospectively overruled so that it is still valid until a new ruling on the same matter. This strategy ensures that new legal interpretations by the Supreme Court do not have an impact on earlier transactions and shapes remedy based on justice. This frequently occurs in service or tax cases, when current positions or taxes already collected don’t need to alter as a result of later conflicting judgements. For reasons of justice or order, projected overruling is an exception to the rule that laws declared by the Supreme Court are valid from the start. It is essential that the judgement specifically declare whether a law will apply going forward. The High Court lacks the jurisdiction to reach this conclusion on its own without such a statement from the Supreme Court.
In the case of Great Northern Railway v. Sunburst Oil and Refinery Co. [18]the US Supreme Court established the notion of prospective overruling. By using this theory, the court can keep the old law in effect for earlier instances while only applying the new decision to situations that arise later. The Court’s justification was to stop parties from being unduly impacted by judicial or legal developments. Prospective overruling prevents such negative effects on previous transactions as retrospective application may declare transactions under the old law invalid.

Reversing:
Reversing is when a higher court, often an appeal court, reverses a judgement rendered by a lower court. In this procedure, the higher court replaces the lower court’s decision with its own, thereby overturning it and creating a new standard that must be adhered to going forward.
- Concession and assent:
  Decisions obtained via the assent of the parties concerned or concessions made by legal counsel during discussions do not set precedents. These cases do not constitute binding precedent because the court did not thoroughly consider the applicable legal concepts.
- Non-Speaking Orders:
  Non-speaking orders are decisions issued without detailed explanations or reasoning. For example, when the Supreme Court dismisses a special leave petition without providing an explanation, the decision lacks the authority of binding precedent, particularly concerning the essential legal principles that underlie the lower court’s ruling.

Specific Exclusion: A judgment that explicitly states that its legal reasoning should not be considered binding precedent or relied upon in future cases holds limited significance as a precedent. This declaration by the court limits the application of the judgment to the particular case at hand.

On Facts:
When a judgment is rendered based solely on the specific facts of a particular case, without the court engaging in broader legal analysis, it does not establish a precedent that other courts must follow under Article 141 of the Constitution. Such judgments are confined to their particular factual circumstances.

Reconsideration:
The Supreme Court holds the authority to reverse its own prior decisions, but such departures from established precedents typically require compelling reasons. While non-consideration of foreign decisions might not be sufficient grounds for reconsideration, especially if a decision by a Constitution Bench remains unchallenged for an extended period, other extraordinary factors may prompt the Court to reevaluate its earlier stance.

Analyzing Problems Arising from Precedents as a Source of Law.

The legal system is made more complex and difficult by court precedent. Layers of interpretation, divergence, ambiguity, and rigidity may result. Furthermore, its retrograde outlook can prevent adaptation and impede essential legal advancements.

The Complexities of Precedent in Indian Law:

The use of judicial precedent increases the complexity of India’s legal system on many different levels. India’s legal system is divided into several levels, including subordinate courts, higher courts, and the Supreme Court. Each court’s rulings can set precedents, which might lead to the creation of various interpretations for cases in the future. This tiered structure serves as an example of how a case’s development through many courts might result in a range of prospective precedents.[19]

Interpretational Differences in court Precedent:
Disparities in interpretation can occur even when a court precedent appears to outline a clear framework for future cases. There is some confusion since various judges may have different perspectives on the fundamental goal of a decision. As in other legal systems, such divergent views might continue until future judgements provide explanations. These conflicting viewpoints highlight how precedent interpretation in Indian law is dynamic.
Ambiguity till Final Resolutions:

Like other legal systems, India’s judicial system struggles with the ambiguity that results from the lack of final rulings. The whole judicial system is not always constrained by earlier decisions, unlike subordinate courts, which must follow judgements from higher courts. This circumstance causes uncertainty up until a final judgement or appeal decision is made. This ambiguity is further accentuated by judges’ variable propensity to depart from precedent, which depends on their evaluation of fairness and legislative purpose.

Striking a Balance Between Rigidity and Adaptability:

Once established, precedents may provide India’s legal system both rigidity and stability. Existing regulations may continue to be applied long after they are no longer necessary, just like in other countries. Judges’ unwillingness to change long-held beliefs until necessary circumstances can keep out-of-date legislation in place. Like other legal systems, modifications may necessitate the appeal of some cases to higher courts before incorporating fresh interpretations.

Finding a Balance Between Past and Future Justice:

India’s commitment to precedent demands finding a careful balance between upholding earlier rulings and considering current requirements. The legal system’s capacity to respond to changing conditions can occasionally be hampered by the emphasis placed on precedent. The conflict between maintaining precedent and pursuing justice in the future is highlighted by the contrast with statutory laws, which concentrate on actions that will take place in the future as prospective crimes.[20]

Introducing Unexpected limits by Precedent:
Just like their international counterparts, Indian courts may unintentionally impose unanticipated limits through precedent-setting judgements. Application of precedent may unintentionally limit the creation of legal doctrines that are appropriate for the present societal changes. Even though past rulings may not be relevant in the current situation, judges may feel compelled to rely on them.
Abundance of Applicable Precedents:

Due to India’s extensive body of case law, there may be an excess of precedents that apply in each situation, which might complicate legal processes. Judges must traverse the complex process of determining which precedent is most relevant in a specific situation when attorneys from opposing parties use a variety of precedents to support their claims.[21]

Difficulties in Deviating from Precedent:
Judges in India occasionally attempt to depart from accepted precedent when confronted with sociological or structural complexity. Such deviations might result in decisions that seem to violate common sense and the doctrine’s intended application. Such variations from the norm may provoke debate, call into question judgements, and sabotage the consistency of the law.
Precedent in India is influenced by external factors such as:

The way judicial precedent is used in India can be considerably impacted by external events and legislative changes. India has seen changes as a result of changing legal requirements, much as how the Human Rights Act of 1998 affected precedent interpretation in other countries. For instance, concerns pertaining to constitutional rights and international agreements may have an impact on how precedents are interpreted.

CONCLUSION

Precedents are foundational in the Indian legal system, ensuring consistency, equity, and predictability in judicial outcomes. However, factors like abrogation, per incuriam decisions, unargued cases, and prospective overruling can weaken precedent authority, adding flexibility to the otherwise rigid structure for intricate legal scenarios.

Despite maintaining stability, the doctrine of precedent faces challenges due to hierarchical court systems, diverse interpretations, and the need to balance rigidity and adaptability. Finding equilibrium between honoring established principles and adapting to current needs is essential for just legal progress.

The Indian legal system achieves a delicate balance between upholding past precedents and addressing contemporary legal demands. Despite potential uncertainties, the system evolves, accommodating external influences and changing requirements. Ultimately, the doctrine of precedent remains a crucial guide, steering courts towards fairness, consistency, and impartiality in the dynamic landscape of Indian law.

[1] Julie Young(2022), Stare Decisis: What It Means in Law, With Examples

[2] See. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6666-precedent-as-a-source-of-law.html accessed on 15 Aug 2023.

[3] See. https://ijtr.nic.in/webjournal/8.htm Accessed on 15 Aug 2023.

[4] See. https://www.thelawgurukul.com/post/precedent-as-source-of-law-and-its-importance accessed on 16 Aug 2023.

[5] See. file:///C:/Users/LCJAI/Downloads/22RevLitig143.pdf accessed on 16 Aug 2023

[6] See. https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/legal-reas-prec/ accessed on 17 Aug 2023

[7] John A. Smith, “Precedent and Legal Reasoning: A Comparative Study. Journal of Legal Studies, Volume 45, Issue 3, Year: 2015

[8] Emily R. Johnson, “The Binding Precedent: Its Nature and Limits”, Harvard Law Review, Volume 72, Issue 2, Year: 2019

[9] Art. 141 of the Counstitution of India.

[10] Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 1 SCC 667

[11] Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal (2005) 4 SCC 303

[12] Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar and Another (2005) 1 SCC 608