CONSTITUIONAL SANCITY OF PRECEDENTS: ARTICLE 141&144 EXPLAINED

By: Arav Pattjoshi

ABSTRACT:

The doctrine of stare decisis is one of the foundational principles of the common law system. The doctrine dictates that to ensure judicial stability and consistency, there must be strict adherence to judicial precedents. In India, this doctrine transcends traditional judicial norms found in English common law and finds a specific statutory home in the Indian Constitution under Article 141 and Article 144. These articles provide constitutional sanctity to the doctrine of precedent.

This article lays down the detailed theoretical underpinnings of the doctrine, distinguishing between the binding ratio decidendi and the non-binding obiter dicta. It delves into the scope of Article 141, which establishes the binding authority of the Supreme Court’s decisions on all lower courts. Furthermore, the analysis explores Article 144, which mandates all civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court, ensuring enforceability. Finally, the article examines critical exceptions to stare decisis, such as the doctrines of per incuriam and sub silentio.

1. INTRODUCTION:

A coherent legal system is built on the cornerstones of certainty, stability and predictability. These concepts are essential for a proper functioning of the society and not just abstract legal system. These concepts enables to citizens to have a reasonable expectation about the legal consequences for their actions. When there is no such certainty or predictability the public confidence on the judicial process is diminished. The doctrine of precedent developed in the common law system provided the required stability. The doctrine is based on latin maxim stare decisis et non quieta movere, which means “to stand by things decided and not disturb the calm.” The doctrine puts an obligation on the courts to lay down its rulings and judgements based on the previous cases when adjudicating matters of similar facts and legal issues, which ensures consistency and uniformity in application of law.

India, as a legatee of the English common law tradition, inherited the doctrine of stare decisis, which holds that the judge-made law is a vital source of legal principles. However, the traditional English-model of the judge-made law is not followed in India. The framers of the Indian Constituion makers made a significant departure from the convention-based English model. They recognized that following the English model could lead to legal fragmentation across the country as vast and diverse like India with its many High Courts. They, instead, enshrined it within the provisions of the Indian Constitution. As a result, the adherence to the precedents is a binding constitutional duty of the courts.

Article 141 and Article 144 are the two key provisions that have enshrined the the doctrine of precedent within the Indian constitution. Art 141 states, “The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.”  This ensures legal uniformity and reinforces the Supreme Court’s authority as the highest judicial body in the country, promoting consistency in the application of laws nationwide. Art 144 states, “All authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.” This provision ensures the finality and enforceability of the judgement passed by the apex court.  Together, these articles create a constitutionally mandated framework for judicial precedent. The aim of this work is to analyze these two provisions and how they establish a constitutional sanctity to the doctrine of stare decisis and further upholding the rule of law.

2. The Doctrine of Stare Decisis: Theoretical Underpinnings

Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dicta: The Anatomy of a Judgement:

In every judicial decisions, there are different elements. However, not all of them carry the same force of law. The part of the judgement that is binding is located at the ratio decidendi, while obiter dicta contains other judicial observations made by the judges that do not have binding legal effect. Ratio decidendi is Latin for “the reason for the decision.”It is the legal principle that the court applies to the material facts of the case to arrive at its final judgement. It is the core reasoning that was used by the court to reach its final judgement and constitutes the “law declared” under Article 141. This makes it binding on all the lower courts. Obiter dicta, meaning “things said by the way,” are remarks, observations and opinions expressed by a judge while pronouncing the judgemnt. Though not binding in nature, they carry a significant persuasive authority before the lower courts. They provide context and offer guidance on future legal issues. They can reveal a judge’s personal views or broader considerations, helping to shape the ongoing development of the law.

The distinction between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta is often subject to interpretation by the subsequent goods.  A principle that might be considered as ratio of one case may be adopted as obiter dicta in another judge. It depends on the discretion of the judge after examining the the facts of the case. To aid the distinction the Wambaugh’s Inversion Test is used, which posits that a statement is ratio only if its omission from the judgement would have altered the final outcome of the judgement, otherwise it is obiter.

The Normative Value of Precedent:

The continued application of doctrine of stare decisis across the common law system is rooted in strong normative justifications, necessary for the proper functioning of legal order in the society:

• By following established legal rules, the doctrine of stare decisis ensures a stable legal framework. This allows individuals, businesses and government to be aware of the legal consequences of their actions.
• The core principle of the doctrine is “like cases should be treated alike”.Therefore, in cases of similar nature that have a similar question of law judges use the same legal principles, ensuring fairness and impartiality.
• Since the principles of law is already established initially, in the subsequent cases the court can save its time without needing constant re-arguements. This saves the finite resources of judiciary and litigants promoting judicial efficiency.
• A legal framework that is consistent and non-arbitrary in nature inspires public trust. The doctrine contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.

3. Article 141: The Constitutional Command

Article 141 of the Indian Constitution gives the doctrine of stare decisis a unique, explicit and commanding authority. It establishes the principle of stare decisis which posits that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India. It ensures consistent legal interpretation and upholds the authority of the Supreme Court and supports uniform application of laws nationwide. This also maintains the supremacy of Supreme Court, maintaing the judicial hierarchy.

The Scope of “Law Declared”:

Art 141 states, “The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.” The phrase ‘law declared’ is the most important part of the provision. The apex court has interpreted the provison to mean ratio decidendi, not every word or observation within the Supreme Court judgement. The principle of law that was followed by the Supreme Court to lay down the judgement carries the binding force. The Supreme Court in Director of Settlements, A.P. v M.R.Apparao distinguished between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. The court also emphasised that for a statement to qualify as a binding “law declared,” it must be the result of a conscious and deliberate judicial analysis of the legal provisions in question. Rulings based merely on the concessions of the parties or unconsidered passing remarks do not constitute binding precedent.

The Supreme Court and its Own Precedents: A Balance of Stability and Progress:

A important question arising out of Article 141 is that whether the Supreme Court is bound by its own previous decisions. The apex court has consitently held that it is not. In the landmark case of Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v State of Bihar, the Supreme Court overruled its own previous decision of Sate of Bombay v The United Motors. The judgement of thecourt established that nothing in the constitution prevents it from departing from its previous decision if it is convinced of its error and its “baneful effect on the general interest of the public”. This allows the Supreme Court to correct its own mistakes that could have caused significant harm to the public at large. However, in Union of India v Raghubir Singh, the apex court held that this freedom to overrule is not absolute.  It held that a pronouncement of law by a Division Bench of the Court is binding on a Division Bench of the same or a smaller number of judges. If a subsequent bench disagrees with a prior decision of a co-equal bench, the proper course is not to disregard it but to refer the matter to a larger bench for an authoritative reconsideration. This rule of bench strength institutionalizes stability. The Bengal Immunity case and Raghubir Singh case showcase the sophisticated balance that the Supreme Court strikes.  It has the substantive authority to rectify itself and assure that this power is not stagnant constitutional interpretation, but rather by means of constitutional interpretation in which emphasis is made on certainty and the systematic evolution of law.

4. Article 144: The Enforcement Mechanism

While Article 141 provides the legal foundation for the doctrine of precedent, Article 144 provides provision for its enforcement. It ensures that law declared by the Supreme Court is not just constituional pronouncement but a command that is followed and implemented throughout the nation. Art 144 states, “All authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.” This provision is in direct synergy with Art 141. While Article 141 establishes the judicial hierarchy with the the Supreme Court at top whose decisions are binding on all lower courts, Article 144 expands this obligation vertically to all organs of the state. The term ‘judicial authorities’ reiterates the obligation of all the lower courts to follow the precedents of the apex court. The term ‘civil authorities’ signifies that the executive is constitutionally obligated to comply with and the implement the law as passed by the Supreme Court. Article 144 establishes the doctrine of precedent into a fundamental principle of governance. Disregarding a Supreme Court precedent by such authorities is not merely an act of judicial indiscipline but a direct violation of the constitutional duty under Article 144.  Article 144 thus serves as the indispensable enforcement arm, ensuring that the law declared under Article 141 is given full force and effect by every institution of the state.

5. Exceptions to the Doctrine

The doctrine of stare decisis is an instrument to serve justice, not subvert it. Application of the doctrine in a rigid manner could lead to perpetuation of errors and injustice. Therefore, the common law system developed certain exceptions to ensure flexibility. These exceptions along with Article 142 of Indian Constitution ensures a stable and just legal framework.

Per Incuriam and Sub Silentio: Correcting Judicial Oversights:

The two most significant exceptions tothe binding nature of the precedents are the doctrine of per incuriam and doctrine of sub silentio. The term per incuriam is a Latin term that translates to ‘through lack of care,’ applies to judicial decisions that have nnen rendered in ignorance or forgetfulness of a relevant statutory provision or a binding precedent of a higher or co-equal court. A judgement delivered in per incuriam is considered to be wrongly decided and does not have a bindin effect. In the case of State of U.P. v Synthetics and Chemical Ltd, the two judge bench of the Supreme Court held that a prior decision of the Constitution bench was per incuriam at a particular point. The court held that the decision of the Constitution Bench was without any reason or rationale and was inconsistent with previous judicial precedents. The doctrine of sub silentio is another such exception. Sub Silentio translates to “in silence” and applies when a particular point of law involved in a decision is not perceived or argued by the parties. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Gurnam Kaur, the Supreme Court explicitly endorsed this principle, stating that “precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment” and cannot be considered “law declared” under Article 141.

The Role of Article 142: Complete Justice Beyond Precedent:

Beyond these exceptions, the Indian Constitution also provides the Supreme Court with unique powers under Article 142. The Article empowers the Court to “pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it”. This article allows the court to provide equitable remedy in exceptional situations where the existing statutory provisions might be insufficient to carry out justice. It becomes important to understand the relation between Art 142 and doctrine of precedents. The Supreme Court has held that the directions issued under Article 142 are fact-specific and not intended to create a binding legal principle under Article 141. The power of the Supreme Court under Article 142 is to supplement the law, not supplant it. This distinction is vital as it allows the court to lay down an equitable judgement in certain unique cases without creating a broad legal principle that might have unforeseen and undesirable consequences in future cases. These exceptions reflect the judiciary’s acknowledgment that law must ultimately serve justice, and no rule, including the rule of precedent, can be so absolute as to defeat that ultimate purpose.

CONCLUSION

In the Indian legal system, the doctrine of stare decisis has found its place in the constitutional provisions as a direct consequence of deliberate and synergistic framework established by Article 141 and Article 144. The frameworks provide a constitutional sanctity to the doctrine and adherence to precedent is a non-negotiable judicial command forming the basis of rule of law in India. Article 141 serves as a foundational pillar, establishing the supremacy of the Supreme Court. By ensuring that the ‘law declared’ by the apex court is binding on all the lower courts, this article ensures legal uniformity and reinforces judicial hierarchy. Article 144 complements Article 141by compelling civil and judicial authorities to act in the aid of the Supreme court. This provision ensures that the judicial decisions are not mere legal concepts but are actually implemented in action by each organ of the government. However, it is established that the doctrine of stare decisis is not a rigid principle and is subject to certain exceptions, which help balance the need for stability with the imperative for justice and progress. As held by the apex court in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v State of Bihar, the Supreme Court has the power to overrule its own judgement ensuring flexibility of law and its ability to correct its course when the situation is such that the precedent can cause a harm to the general public at large. Exceptions like per incuriam and sub silentio function as essential safeguards, preventing the perpetuation of judicial oversights. The stability of the precedent and the general exceptions that allows flexibility and departure from these precedents when necessary are fundamental in maintaining judicial discipline and maintaining rule of law, one of the most essential features of basic structure of the Indian Constituion.

END NOTES:

1. J W Salmond, Jurisprudence or the Theory of Law (11th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 1950) 224 (noting that only the principle needed for the decision – the ratio decidendi – is binding).
2. Eugene Wambaugh, The Study of Cases (2nd edn, Harvard Univ Press 1892) (expounding Wambaugh’s inversion test to distinguish ratio decidendi from obiter dicta).
3. Constitution of India 1950, art 141.
4. Constitution of India 1950, art 144.
5. Constitution of India 1950, art 142.
6. Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh & Ors v M R Apparao & Anr, AIR 2002 SC 1598, (2002) 4 SCC 638.
7. Bengal Immunity Co Ltd v State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661, (1955) 2 SCR 603.
8. State of Bombay v The United Motors (India) Ltd, AIR 1953 SC 252, (1953) 1 SCR 1069.
9. Union of India & Anr v Raghubir Singh (Dead) & Ors, AIR 1989 SC 1933, (1989) 3 SCC 220.
10. State of U.P. & Anr v Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd & Ors, (1980) 2 SCC 441.
11. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Gurnam Kaur, AIR 1989 SC 38, (1989) 1 SCC 101.
12. Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944] 2 KB 718 (per incuriam doctrine).