An Evaluative Study Of The Doctrine Of Precedent In India

Subhashree Mishra, Madhusudan Law University

ABSTRACT

There are innumerable sources from which we derive what we know to be as law. In layman's words, law is nothing more than a set of rules and guidelines that our society choose to go by in order to protect our rights and not infringe on those of others. When one's right is violated by another's, one's ability to exercise that right is lost. With the aid of a law that established three organs the legislature to draught laws, the administration to carry them out, and the judiciary to render judgements on cases the insecurity that people felt once the concept of property and ownership entered the world was eliminated. These organs must not interfere with one another because they work together. While interference can be natural to hold checks and balances, such interference cannot be done with any malafide intention. Stare decisis is not an end in itself, but rather a means to serve significant values in legal system. This paper mainly concerns the proper interpretation of the common law doctrine of stare decisis and also the present scenario of the Supreme Court and High court. This article demonstrates that even if stare decisis is constitutionally required, the courts are not obligated to give prospective precedential effect to every one of their decisions.

Keywords: Precedential effect, Malafide Intention, Constitutional law.