Between Fidelity And Flexibility: Judicial Consistency And The Use Of Precedent In The Indian Supreme Court
- IJLLR Journal
- Jul 31, 2025
- 1 min read
Anushka Choudhary, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University
"Precedent is not a prison from which there is no escape, but neither is it a license to wander at will."
- Justice Benjamin Cardozo
I. ABSTRACT
The doctrine of ‘stare decisis’ refers to the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent. To stand by things decided, or ‘stare decisis’, is the bedrock of common law jurisprudence. Following precedents ensures legal certainty, institutional legitimacy, and the commitment to the rule of law. This doctrine is enshrined in Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, which states that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.
It is imperative to note that despite the enshrinement of the doctrine in the Constitution, the Indian Supreme Court does not always follow the precedents stringently. The Supreme Court engages in numerous tools of interpretation, including ‘distinguishing’ whilst deciding the cases. Interestingly, the court may overlook precedents that it conceives to be inconvenient.
These approaches, while occasionally acceptable, raise fundamental questions regarding doctrinal coherence and judicial accountability. This article analyses how interpretation tools are used to support or undermine precedents. It critically investigates whether these interpretation methodologies uphold the integrity of Article 141 or undermine it under the pretext of constitutional flexibility.
