Stare decisis is a latin phrase which means “to stand by decided cases”. Stare decisis embodies an important social policy of certainty and continuity. The practice of following precedents enables citizens to plan their conduct in the expectation that past decisions will be honoured in the future.
The burden of stare decisis doctrine is that a judge in a later case is bound by the ratio decidendi of the earlier decision. The distinction between ratio and obiter is undoubtedly of great importance. If the court thinks that an issue does not arise, than any observation made with regard to such an issue would be purely obiter dictum.
The Apex court in the case of Govt of AP versus A P Jaiswal emphasized upon the need for courts to follow the principles of stare decisis and observed – consistency is the cornerstone in the administration of justice. The doctrine of binding precedent has the merit of promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions and enables organic development of law, besides providing assurance to the individuals as to the consequence of transaction forming part of his daily affairs. (2001) 1 SCC 748.
In order to understand and appreciate the binding force of a decision, it is always necessary to see what were the facts in the case in which the decision was given and what was the point which had to be decided. An isolated sentence in a judgment cannot be regarded as a full exposition of law. A decision cannot be relied upon in support of a proposition that it did not decide.
There appears to be some controversy as to what is meant in legal parlance when it is said that a case is binding. In B Shama Rao versus UT of Pondocherry, AIR 1967 SC 1480 at page 1487, Justice Shelat observed that a decision is binding in subsequent cases, not because of its conclusion but in regard to its ratio and the principles laid down therein.
In order to have a correct perception of the ratio decidendi of a case, it is necessary to have a close look at the structure of the judgment itself. It is not everything said by a judge has the force of a precedent. Ratio decidendi of a case is the principle of law that decided the dispute in the facts of the case, i.e. the reasons advanced by the court for its decision.
In Sanjay Singh versus U P Public Service Commission – (2007) 3 SCC 720 – the SC held that broadly speaking every judgment of a Superior court has three segments namely -
• The facts and the point at issue;
• The reason for the decision;
• The decision.
It is said that a decision should be read with reference to and in the context of the particular statutory provisions interpreted by the court – MCGB versus BPCL – (2002) 4 SCC 219.
A classic case on the subject of ratio decidendi is an English case of Harper versus National Coal Board. Lord Denning M R observed – We can only accept a line of reasoning which supports the actual decision of the House of Lords.
In U P Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh versus Dayaram Saroj – the SC held that judicial discipline is self discipline. Judicial discipline demands that when the decision of a coordinate bench of the same HC is brought to the notice of the Bench, it is to be respected and binding, subject of course, to the right to take a different view or to doubt the correctness of the decision and the permissible course then open is to refer the question or the case to a larger bench. This is the minimum discipline and decorum to be maintained by judicial fraternity. (2007) 2 SCC 138.
If a HC judge is referred to a relevant decision of the SC, the strict doctrine of precedent would oblige him to ascertain the ratio decidendi and apply it to the operative facts on hand. A judgment of the HC which refuses to follow the decision and direction of the SC, is a nullity. Director of Settlements, AP versus M R Apparao; UOI versus Kantilal H pandya – (1995) 3 SCC 17; (2002) 4 SCC 638.
In the case of Dr Dinesh Kumar versus Motilal Nehru Medical college (1990) 4 SCC 627 – the SC said – the directions of the SC are not intended to be brushed aside and overlooked or ignored. Meticulous compliance is the only way to respond to directions of this court.
Yet the SC is not bound by their own decisions. The clearest pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the subject of precedent is the Bengal immunity case wherein it unanimously ruled that in constitutional matters SC would not consider itself bound by the orthodox doctrine of precedent. Consequently it was held in that case that Article 141 of the Constitution of India cannot be interpreted in the narrow sense so as to make decision of the SC binding upon itself.
Keeping in view judicial discipline and propriety, if two judge bench finds a judgment of three judge bench to be so incorrect in cannot be followed in any circumstances, the proper course would be to refer the matter before it to another bench of three judges. Pradip Chandra Parija versus Pramod Chandra Patnaik – (2002) 1 SCC 1.
In the case of Vineet Narain, the Hon’ble SC held that in the absence of appropriate legislations and executive orders, in matters of public importance and urgency, the SC can issue orders and directions to fill the gap for enforcement of the fundamental rights and doing complete justice in the cause. (1998) 1 SCC 226.
JUDICIAL DIRECTIONS CANNOT BE ANNULLED BY AN ACT.
S S Bola versus B D Sardana – (1997) 8 SCC 522
PUCL versus UOI – (2003) 4 SCC 399
M C Mehta versus UOI – (2002) 4 SCC 356
Privy council decisions are binding on the HC as long as the SC does not overrule them – Pandurang Kalu Patil versus State of Maharashra (2002) 2 SCC 490.
However, fraught with daily crop of sometimes inconsistent judicial affirmations, the HC judges are sometimes called upon to undertake what at times proves to be impossible or illusory task of ascertaining the ratio decidendi of SC decisions in order to be bound by them. Though as a matter of strict legal theory, a HC judge is obliged to adopt and apply ratio decidendi of a precedent decision, in actual practice the things are not so simple. The authority may overlap, or even conflict with another of equal weight.
In Haryana financial corp versus Jagdamba Oil Mills, the Hon’ble SC held that courts should not place reliance on the decision without discussing as to how the situation fits in with the factual situation. (2002) 3 SCC 496 : AIR 2002 SC 834.
In Sumtibai versus Paras Finance Co – (2007) 10 SCC 82 – the SC held that “what is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it.
In the case of Girnar Traders versus State of Maharashtra – (2007) 7 SCC 555 – the SC further held that only the ratio decidendi can act as the binding or authoritative precedent and reliance placed on mere general observations or casual expressions of the court is not of much avail.
General observation in decision of the SC: should be confined to the facts of those cases. Any general observation cannot apply in interpreting the provision of an Act unless the SC has applied its mind to and analysed the provisions of that particular Act.
Raval & Co versus K G Ramachandran – AIR 1974 SC 818 at p. 821: (1974) 1 SCC 424.
Landmark decisions on judicial exposition of law –
Gregg versus Georgia – 49L Ed 2d 859.
Coker versus Georgia
Director of Public prosecutions versus Lynch
Sandeep Jalan
Advocate
Mumbai.
0 comments:
Post a Comment