The Indian legal system, rooted in common law tradition, places significant emphasis on the doctrine of precedent. This principle ensures consistency, stability, and predictability in the administration of justice. However, not all judicial decisions carry the same binding authority. Some exceptions—such as precedents decided sub silentio or per incuriam—limit the otherwise strict application of this doctrine. This article explores the doctrine of precedent, its types, and the key exceptions recognized by Indian courts.
The Doctrine of Precedent: Foundation of Judicial Consistency
The doctrine of precedent (or stare decisis) mandates that courts follow legal principles established in earlier decisions, especially those made by higher courts. Article 141 of the Indian Constitution cements this by declaring that “the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.” The doctrine ensures:
-
Uniformity in the application of law
-
Predictability for individuals and institutions
-
Judicial discipline and efficiency
Types of Precedent in Indian Law
Indian jurisprudence classifies precedents into several types, each with distinct legal consequences:
| Type of Precedent | Description | Binding Nature |
|---|---|---|
| Authoritative Precedent | Must be followed by lower courts, regardless of agreement. | Binding |
| Absolute Precedent | A sub-type of authoritative precedent that is strictly binding and must always be followed. | Strictly binding |
| Conditional Precedent | Also authoritative, but can be disregarded under special circumstances. | Binding, but with exceptions |
| Persuasive Precedent | Not binding; courts may consider and follow if found convincing (e.g., decisions of other High Courts or foreign courts). | Not binding, only advisory |
| Original Precedent | Establishes a new legal rule where none existed before. | Can become binding if from a higher court |
| Declaratory Precedent | Applies or reaffirms an existing rule of law without creating a new one. | Follows existing law |
Key Exceptions: Precedent Sub Silentio and Precedent Per Incuriam
While the doctrine of precedent is vital, Indian law recognizes important exceptions to prevent the perpetuation of errors or decisions made without proper consideration.
Precedent Sub Silentio
A precedent sub silentio arises when a court decides a case without consciously considering or reasoning on a particular legal point. The term means “under silence” in Latin. Such a precedent is not binding because:
-
The specific point of law was not expressly discussed or argued.
-
The court did not consciously decide the issue.
-
Future courts are not obligated to follow such decisions on points not expressly considered.
Judicial View:
The Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur clarified that decisions not founded on reasons or not proceeding on consideration of the issue do not have binding effect under Article 141.
Precedent Per Incuriam
A precedent per incuriam (Latin: “through lack of care”) is a decision rendered in ignorance or forgetfulness of a binding statutory provision or a relevant precedent. Such decisions:
-
Are made without reference to, or in ignorance of, a statute or binding case law.
-
Do not bind future courts and may be disregarded.
-
Serve as a safeguard against judicial errors being perpetuated.
Judicial View:
The doctrine of per incuriam is a well-recognized exception in India. The Supreme Court and High Courts have held that decisions per incuriam do not have the force of law and are not binding.
Conclusion
The doctrine of precedent is crucial for the orderly development of law in India. However, the exceptions of precedent sub silentio and precedent per incuriam ensure that only well-reasoned, fully considered judicial decisions become binding law. These exceptions uphold the integrity of the legal system by preventing the rigid application of flawed or incomplete precedents, thereby maintaining both consistency and flexibility in Indian jurisprudence.