There are various sources of law but mainly they are Customs, Precedents, Legislation and Conventional Law. Precedents established by the Supreme Court are the leading sources of declared law. Precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example to be considered in similar circumstances. Precedents mainly signifies the judgement of the superior court of law cited as an authority for deciding a similar set of facts by the lower courts. The position of this under Indian Constitution is stated under Article 141 of the constitution which stipulates that “the law declared by Supreme Court are binding on all courts within the territory of India”[1]. As in India “ the Supreme Court is the highest court in hierarchy and decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all courts in India.” [2]
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance and validity of Article 141 in a number of judgements through the ambit of various general rules like Ratio-Decidendi, Stare-Decisis, Obiter-Dictum, etc.
- Obiter-Dictum: In legal parlance “ it refers to a passage in a judicial opinion which is not necessary for the decision of the case before the court” [3] which is said by the judge while passing judgement. Thus, such statements may lack the force of precedent but nevertheless be significant.
- Ratio-Decidendi: “It is the determining point which becomes the base for judgement. Thus, it is an essential precedent requires to be followed by subordinate courts in similar cases.”[4]
3. Stare- Decisis- This principle states that, “ a question once considered by a court and answered must elicit the same response every time the same issue is brought before the court.”[5] In India, this doctrine has been adopted through Article 141 of the Constitution, which states that decision of the higher courts are binding on the subordinate courts but this is not true for Supreme Court as it may depart from its own decision.
This is some of the general rules through which the Supreme Court emphasizes the importance and validity of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and also shows how it can be interpreted through different rules.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court through its various cases have also interpreted the application of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and also how the precedents are determined under the same article. The Supreme Court talking further about the binding nature of its own judgement on itself said in the case of Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan[6] “ the Constitution does not place any restriction on its power to review or depart from its earlier decision but in matters related to constitutional importance which mainly affect the fundamental rights it can review its own decisions for the public good”. Thus, it can be seen that the judicial precedents set by the Supreme Court are binding on all the subordinate courts but the Supreme Court may accept or depart from its earlier decision depends on them.
Also, it can be seen that the judgement or the precedent set by the Supreme Court is binding on all on the subordinate courts, which can be implied that the Supreme Court also have the power to declare the law , as it can be cannot be challenged by any subordinate courts and also they have to accept the judgement, so it means that Supreme Court is empowered to declare the law. This can be further implied with the help of Supreme Court judgement in the case of Director of Setttlents, Andhra Pradesh Vs M.R Apparao and Anr.[7]“ Article 141 of the Constitution unequivocally mentions that the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all the subordinate courts. The aforesaid article empowers the Supreme Court to declare the law”.
There may be various merits of the judicial precedents passed by the Supreme Court of India under Article 141 of the Constitution of India like, “it helps in promoting consistency and flexibility, this may help lawyers to assist their clients after going through the precedents on the specific subject matter”.[8] Furthermore, it also helps in promoting flexibility, saving time of courts and also preventing mistakes by lawyers as well as courts. This has also been mentioned in the Supreme Court in no. of it judgement but one such judgement can be of Union of India Vs Raghubir Singh[9] where it has been held that “ the doctrine of binding precedent has a merit of promoting a certainty and consistency in judicial decisions and enables an organic development of law.” Thus, it can be seen that apart from the binding nature of judicial precedents passed by the Supreme Court on subordinate courts there are various other merits of this judicial precedents.
There are various sources of laws which are interpreted by different courts and courts takes a decision on the basis of these laws. The judicial precedents which are passed by the Supreme Court are binding on all its subordinate courts in India under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The importance and validity of this precedents is explained by the Supreme Court in various judgements through the ambit of general principles like obiter- dictum, stare- decisis, etc. Apart from this, the judicial precedents passed by the Supreme Court are not binding on them as they can depart from its earlier judgements. All this shows that there are various merits of the precedents passed by the Supreme Court. Thus, Article 141 of the Indian Constitution binds the judgement of the higher courts to its lower courts as declared law.
[1]Art. 141, The Constitution of India, 1950
[2]Advocate KapilKishor Kaushik , Precedent Under Article 141 of The Constitution of India, http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2182-precedent-under-article-141-of-the-constitution-of-india.html , ( 2/6/2020 12.30pm)
[3]The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Obiter Dictum, Encylopaedia Britannica, 5th March, 2018 , https://www.britannica.com/topic/obiter-dictum, (2/6/2020 12.59 pm)
[4]Supra note 2
[5]The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica ,Stare Decisis , Encyclopedia Britannica , 11th April 2018, https://www.britannica.com/topic/stare-decisis, ( 2/6/2020 18.18pm)
[6]Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan ( 1965 AIR 845 , 1965 SCR (1)963)
[7]Director of Settlements , Andhra Pradesh Vs M.R Apparao & Anr ( AIR 2002 SC 598)
[8] Kiranpreet Kaur , Judicial Precedents in India , https://www.mondaq.com/india/trials-appeals-compensation/882616/judicial-precedents-in-indiahttps://www.mondaq.com/india/trials-appeals-compensation/882616/judicial-precedents-in-india , 10th February ,2020 ( 3/6/2020 11.28 am)
[9] Union of India Vs Raghubir Singh ( AIR 1989 SC 1933)
0 Comments