Doctrine of precedent is recognized in Indian legal system also being a ‘descendant’ of

the British legal system. The main principles of doctrine of precedent as applicable in

India are:

a) All inferior and subordinate court is bound by the decision of the High courts to

which they are subordinate. Decisions of other High court are of only persuasive

value for the subordinate court. Thus High court can bind only those inferior courts

which are within their territorial jurisdiction. As for example district courts of Delhi

are bound to follow the precedent set by Delhi High Court, but not of Chandigarh

High Court. Decision pronounced by the Chandigarh High Court is only of

persuasive value for the District court at Delhi.

b) In case there is a conflict between the decisions of two co-equal bench of the same

High Court, then the decision later in time should be followed. However, apex court

observed in Indo Swiss Time Ltd. vs. Umrao A.I.R. 1981, Panch H, 213(F.B.) that the

authority must be considered on the basis of rationale view and logic expressed

therein and not merely on fortuitous circumstances.

c) Smallest bench of the High Court consists of single judge, division bench is of two

judges and the bench consisted of more than two judges is called full bench. The

decision of larger bench is binding on smaller as well as coordinate bench.

THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM In the United States, which uses a common law system in its state courts and to a

lesser extent in its federal courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated:

Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an

abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to

decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means,

literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or

keep to what was said." Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi — "to keep to the

rationes decidendi of past cases." Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is

important only for what it decides — for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the

"how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision,

for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.

In other words, stare decisis applies to the holding of a case, rather than to obiter dicta

("things said by the way"). As the United States Supreme Court has put it: "dicta may be

followed if sufficiently persuasive but are not binding."

In the United States Supreme Court, the principle of stare decisis is

most flexible in constitutional cases:

Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is

more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that

it be settled right. ... But in cases involving the Federal Constitution,

where correction through legislative action is practically impossible,

this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. ... This is

strikingly true of cases under the due process clause.

—Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406–407, 410

(1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

In the United States and England, the Common Law has traditionally adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle, known as stare decisis, distinguishes the common law from civil-law systems, which give great weight to codes of laws and the opinions of scholars explaining them. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered a question, the same question in other cases must elicit the same response from the same court or lower courts in that jurisdiction.

The principle of stare decisis was not always applied with uniform

strictness. In medieval England, common-law courts looked to

earlier cases for guidance, but they could reject those they

considered bad law. Courts also placed less than complete reliance

on prior decisions because there was a lack of reliable written

reports of cases. Official reports of cases heard in various courts

began to appear in the United States in the early 1800s, but semi-

official reports were not produced in England until 1865. When

published reports became available, lawyers and judges finally had

direct access to cases and could more accurately interpret prior

decisions.

For stare decisis to be effective, each

jurisdiction must have one highest court to

declare what the law is in a precedent-setting

case. The U.S. Supreme Court and the state

supreme courts serve as precedential bodies,

resolving conflicting interpretations of law or

dealing with issues of first impression.

Whatever these courts decide becomes

judicial precedent.

In the United States, courts seek to follow

precedent whenever possible, seeking to

maintain stability and continuity in the law.

Devotion to stare decisis is considered a

mark of judicial restraint, limiting a judge's

ability to determine the outcome of a case in

a way that he or she might choose if it were

a matter of first impression.

The use of precedent by courts in the United States of

America should be viewed as a tradition or a practice, rather

than a legal doctrine in the strictest sense of the word,

because it is so deeply embedded in the culture of the legal

profession and the judiciary that it takes place without much

reflection by judges. In its simplest and most important

sense, the doctrine of stare decisis requires all tribunals of

inferior jurisdiction to follow the precedents of courts of

superior jurisdiction, to accept the law as declared by superior

courts, and not to attempt to overrule their decisions.

American lawyers have come to believe that “[t]he slightest

deviation from this rigid rule would destroy the sanctity of the

judicial practice. There would be no finality or stability in the

law and the court system would be chaotic in its operation

and unstable and inconsistent in its decisions.”