Stare decisis

Stare decisis is short for stare decisis et non quieta movere, to stand by things decided and not to disturb what is settled. It is the foundation of the doctrine of precedent: a court follows the legal principle on which an earlier case was decided when the same point arises again. What binds is the ratio decidendi of the earlier decision, not observations made in passing, which are obiter dicta.

In India the doctrine has a constitutional basis. Article 141 provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. High Court decisions bind the courts subordinate to them, and within a court, a bench is bound by the decision of a coordinate or larger bench; a bench that doubts a coordinate bench's view refers the question to a larger bench.

The Supreme Court is not bound by its own earlier decisions. In Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar (1955), the Court held that Article 141 refers to courts other than the Supreme Court and that it may depart from a previous decision if convinced of its error and its harmful effect on the public, a power to be used with care. In Waman Rao v. Union of India (1980), Chandrachud, C.J. observed that the principle permits the saving of laws whose validity has been accepted over the years, but does not sanction future illegality. In Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024), a seven Judge Bench said stare decisis is not inflexible and overruled the majority view in P.V. Narasimha Rao on legislators' immunity for bribery.

Examiners test the meaning of the maxim, the binding effect under Article 141, the ratio and obiter distinction, and the Supreme Court's freedom to overrule itself.