The concept of stare decisis is a legal doctrine that means “to stand by things decided” in Latin. It is closely related to the concept of precedent, which is a legal principle or rule that is created by the decisions given by courts. In this article, we will explore how these two concepts work together in the common law system and what are their advantages and disadvantages.
Contents
The doctrine of stare decisis and its objectives
The doctrine of stare decisis refers to the idea that courts must follow previously made judicial decisions in cases where the same legal issues are brought before them in subsequent matters. This means that courts must respect and apply the precedents that have been established by higher courts or by their own previous decisions. The doctrine of stare decisis aims to pursue four essential objectives, they are as follows:
– It builds confidence amongst the people in planning their economic and social transactions by acknowledging that their actions are in compliance with the law.
– It encourages the private resolution of disputes as the court may give its decision based on the decision of a similar previously decided case or legal issue.
– It promotes consistency and uniformity in the application of law across different jurisdictions and cases.
– It enhances the efficiency and economy of the judicial system by avoiding unnecessary litigation and repetition of arguments.
The concept of precedent and its types
The concept of precedent refers to the legal principle or rule that is created by the decisions given by courts. Such decisions become an authority or an example for the judges to decide similar legal cases/issues in the future. The concept of precedent can be classified into two types: binding precedent and persuasive precedent.
– A binding precedent is a decision that must be followed by lower courts or by the same court in future cases. For example, in India, the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all other courts as per Article 141 of the Constitution.
– A persuasive precedent is a decision that is not binding but may influence or guide the courts in future cases. For example, in India, the decisions of foreign courts or lower courts may be considered as persuasive precedents by higher courts or other courts.
The advantages and disadvantages of stare decisis and precedent
The doctrine of stare decisis and the concept of precedent have both advantages and disadvantages for the legal system. Some of them are as follows:
Advantages
– They provide certainty, predictability and stability in the law, which helps people to plan their affairs accordingly and avoid conflicts.
– They ensure equality, fairness and justice in the law, which prevents arbitrary or discriminatory treatment of similar cases.
– They reflect the collective wisdom and experience of the judiciary, which enhances the quality and credibility of the law.
– They foster legal development and innovation, which allows the law to adapt to changing social needs and values.
Disadvantages
– They may create rigidity and inflexibility in the law, which may hinder its responsiveness to new situations or challenges.
– They may lead to legal complexity and confusion, which may increase the cost and time of litigation and reduce accessibility to justice.
– They may perpetuate errors or injustices, which may undermine the legitimacy and morality of the law.
– They may restrict judicial independence and creativity, which may limit the scope for judicial activism or reform.
Conclusion
The concept of stare decisis is closely related to the concept of precedent, as they both involve following previous judicial decisions in similar cases. These concepts have both advantages and disadvantages for the legal system, as they balance between continuity and change, stability and flexibility, uniformity and diversity in the law. The doctrine of stare decisis and the concept of precedent are essential features of the common law system, which rely on judicial precedents as a source of law.
