Article 141 of the Constitution of India

« »

The doctrine of precedent is a cardinal principle of the hierarchical nature of the judicial system.
Precedent means judgment or decision of a court of law cited as an authority for the legal principle embodied in it.
The doctrine of precedent, which is also known as stare decisis, i.e., stand by the decision, is based on the principle that like cases should be decided alike.
According to Salmond, in a loose sense, precedent includes merely reported case law which may be cited & followed by courts.
It is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.
A precedent which creates and applies a new rule is called an original precedent.
A precedent does not create a new rule and it merely applies to the existing rule of law, is termed as Declaratory precedent.
In the absence of codified laws, the concept of law of precedents evolved in England, and was later adopted in Indian law as well.

In India, the doctrine of stare decisis has been adopted through Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
Stare Decisis is a Latin term which means to stand by decisions and not to disturb what is settled.
This doctrine makes it abundantly clear that legal precedents play a pivotal role in deciding an issue having identical facts and questions of law.

After independence, when our Constitution came into force, Article 141 was enforced, which strengthened the status of judicial precedents in the Indian legal system.
Article 141 states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.
The law declared has to be construed as a principle of law that emanates from a judgment, or an interpretation of law or judgment by the Supreme Court, upon which the case is decided.
Article 141 does not carve out an exception or proviso which allows the Supreme Court to make an observation regarding what shall not be treated as a precedent.
Once a judgment is pronounced, the role of the Supreme Court ends there, and Article 141 steps into the picture.
A judgment rendered by the Supreme Court is not binding in its entirety.
It is only the ratio decidendi part of the judgment which is binding and shall be taken into consideration while deciding questions of law based on identical issues and facts.
An obiter dictum, per-incuriam judgment, sub silentio and legislative provisions are some of the exceptions to this doctrine of law of precedents.

Ratio Decidendi is a Latin phrase meaning the reason or the rationale for the decision.
Ratio-Decidendi is the determining point which becomes the base for a judgement.
This principle of law is not only applicable to that particular case but all subsequent similar cases.

Obiter dictum is a Latin phrase meaning that which is said in passing.
It connotes a judge's expression of opinion uttered in court or while giving judgement, but not essential to the decision and therefore it has no binding authority.

Per incuriam is a Latin term which means through lack of care.
A court decision made per incuriam is one which ignores a relevant statutory provision and has no force.

The concept of sub silentio simply means when a rule or principle on a particular point of law in a decision is passed and applied by the court in silence without any consideration to the applicable law or any argument.

The parliament is the supreme legislative authority and thus, it can destroy the effects of precedents established by the Supreme Court, by passing a statutory law.
Legislation can abrogate the precedent impliedly or expressly.

In the case of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985), the Supreme Court held that the interpretation of religious texts is a binding precedent.
In the case of State of U.P v. Synthesis & Chemicals Ltd. (1991), the Supreme Court held that a decision which is neither founded on reasons nor proceeds on consideration of issues, cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141 of the COI.
In the case of Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagadeesan (2002), the Supreme Court held that it is impermissible for the High Court to overrule the decision given by the Supreme Court merely on the ground that the decision stated by the Supreme Court laid down principles without considering any of the legal points.
In the case of Pandurang Kalu Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2002), the Supreme court stated that the decisions of the High court will be binding until and unless the Supreme Court overrules them.
In Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab (2021), the Supreme Court took a step forward to expand the powers laid down under Article 141 of the COI.