SC judgment a precedent, even if it says No

I have chosen this subject because, in a recent judgment concerning a woman named Priyanka Sharma, the Supreme Court said that its judgment is a special case and not a precedent. I am here not discussing the merit of the case but only the basic legal issue, as to whether a judgment of the Supreme Court can be taken as precedent when all the facts and circumstances of another case are on all fours, even though the Supreme Court has said that it is not a precedent.

 

The precedent value of a Supreme Court judgment comes not from the judgment itself but from the Constitution. Article 141 of the Constitution says that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. So once a decision of the Supreme Court is delivered, the jurisdiction of the Article 141 steps in and the scope of the court does not exist to say that it is not a binding precedent.

 

Such issues have arisen in the past. There have been occasions when the Supreme Court while giving a decision remarked that this judgment would not be a precedent. The legal position as to whether they are precedents has been discussed in the following judgment. D Navinchandra & Co. v U.O.I. - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 266 (Bom.) In this case under the Customs Act, 1962, the issue was whether an order passed by the Supreme Court in a case would be binding as a precedent in a similar case. There were two parties with similar facts of the case who were punished by the Customs. One went to the Supreme Court and got relief. The order of the Supreme Court was thus:

 

“We would like to emphasise that since we have decided the matter in view of the special facts and circumstances available in these cases, this order will not be treated as a precedent.”

The other party went to the Bombay High Court in writ jurisdiction when the high court ordered that the aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court (that its order is not a precedent) cannot come in the way of granting the relief prayed for as the facts and circumstances governing the case of the petitioner are identical to the facts which were before the Supreme Court. Here the high court has, in fact, held the Supreme Court’s order as a precedent which means that the Supreme Court’s order was a precedent, even if the Supreme Court said that it was not.

 

Here we have to take into account the legal doctrine of Stare Decisis. Stare Decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases while making a ruling on a similar case. Stare Decisis ensures that cases with similar scenarios and facts are approached in the same way. Simply put, it binds courts to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions.

 

The common law structure has a unified system of deciding legal matters with the principle of Stare Decisis at its core, making the concept of legal precedent extremely important. A prior ruling or judgment, in any case, is known as a precedent. Stare Decisis dictates that courts look into precedents when overseeing an on-going case with similar circumstances.

 

However, we have to legally ascertain what is the decision of the court. There are occasions where the Supreme Court merely rejects a special leave petition in limine without going into the merit in details. The precedent value of such a decision has been discussed here. In the judgment in the case of I.O.C. v. State of Bihar - 1987 (27) E.L.T. 578 (S.C.), the Supreme Court has clarified that when a case is rejected in an SLP in limine, it does not mean that it has implicitly decided on the merits of the case. So such a judgment cannot be taken as a precedent.

 

The matter of precedent is not so simple as it seems on the face of it. The binding role of precedent has become controversial due to different judgments varying in the legal interpretation. Wrong judgment is not a precedent. It is binding only when the facts and circumstances are on all fours. The doctrine of precedents cannot create a “prison house of bigotry”.

 

The writer is member, Central Board of Excise & Customs (retired)

Email: smukher2000@yahoo.com