Doctrine Of Precedent In Criminal Law
The Doctrine of Precedent, also known as stare decisis, is a fundamental principle in common law legal systems. It means that courts should follow previous judicial decisions (precedents) when deciding cases with similar facts or legal issues. This doctrine ensures consistency, predictability, and stability in the law.
In criminal law, the doctrine of precedent plays a crucial role because:
It promotes uniformity in sentencing and legal interpretations.
It protects the rights of the accused by ensuring that legal principles are applied consistently.
It helps courts develop and evolve criminal jurisprudence gradually.
The binding nature of precedent varies depending on the hierarchy of courts:
Decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all lower courts.
Decisions of High Courts are binding on subordinate courts within the respective jurisdiction.
A court is generally bound by its own previous decisions unless overruled by a higher court or unless the precedent is per incuriam (decided in ignorance of a relevant statute or precedent).
Important Case Laws on Doctrine of Precedent in Criminal Law
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) SCR (4) 225
Though primarily a constitutional case, this landmark judgment elaborated on the binding nature of precedent in India. The Supreme Court held that while precedent should generally be followed to maintain stability in law, the Court has the power to overrule past decisions if they are found to be incorrect or if they conflict with constitutional principles.
In criminal law, this doctrine helps courts decide whether to adhere to prior decisions or reconsider them in light of new circumstances or evidence.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254
This case reiterated the importance of precedent in criminal cases involving sentencing. The Supreme Court emphasized that sentencing principles laid down in earlier cases must be followed unless there is a compelling reason to deviate. This ensures fairness and consistency in the imposition of criminal punishments.
The Court held that the doctrine of precedent protects accused persons from arbitrary or discriminatory sentencing.
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) AIR 597
While this case is famous for expanding the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), it also affirmed the importance of precedent in criminal jurisprudence. The Supreme Court held that laws and their interpretations must conform to constitutional guarantees, and precedents inconsistent with fundamental rights should be overruled.
Thus, this case reinforces that precedents must align with constitutional protections in criminal law.
4. Shankar v. State of Maharashtra (1977) AIR 371
In this case, the Supreme Court laid down the principle that the decisions of coordinate benches of the same court are not binding on each other but should be followed unless there are strong reasons not to do so. This case clarified how precedents should be treated when there are conflicting judgments of the same court.
This is significant in criminal law, where different benches might interpret procedural or substantive issues differently.
5. Sakshi v. Union of India (2004) 5 SCC 518
This case reaffirmed the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions on all lower courts, emphasizing that lower courts cannot ignore or refuse to follow binding precedents in criminal matters. The Court highlighted that the doctrine of precedent ensures respect for the rule of law and prevents arbitrariness.
Summary
The Doctrine of Precedent ensures legal certainty and uniformity in criminal law.
The Supreme Court’s decisions are binding on all courts in India.
High Courts’ decisions bind subordinate courts within their jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court may overrule its own precedents in exceptional circumstances.
Precedents conflicting with constitutional rights may be overruled.
Conflicting precedents from coordinate benches are not binding on each other but may be persuasive.
RELATED Blog
0 comments