The document discusses the doctrine of precedent, or stare decisis, in the Indian legal system and how it is similar to the British common law system. It outlines some key principles: a) Lower courts are bound by decisions of higher courts in their jurisdiction, but decisions of other higher courts are only persuasive. b) In cases of conflict between decisions of equal benches of the same high court, the later decision should be followed, though the rationale is also considered. c) Larger benches of a high court are binding on smaller benches and coordinate benches.

10. Doctrine of precedent is recognized in Indian legal system also being a ‘descendant’ of
the British legal system. The main principles of doctrine of precedent as applicable in
India are:
a) All inferior and subordinate court is bound by the decision of the High courts to
which they are subordinate. Decisions of other High court are of only persuasive
value for the subordinate court. Thus High court can bind only those inferior courts
which are within their territorial jurisdiction. As for example district courts of Delhi
are bound to follow the precedent set by Delhi High Court, but not of Chandigarh
High Court. Decision pronounced by the Chandigarh High Court is only of
persuasive value for the District court at Delhi.
b) In case there is a conflict between the decisions of two co-equal bench of the same
High Court, then the decision later in time should be followed. However, apex court
observed in Indo Swiss Time Ltd. vs. Umrao A.I.R. 1981, Panch H, 213(F.B.) that the
authority must be considered on the basis of rationale view and logic expressed
therein and not merely on fortuitous circumstances.
c) Smallest bench of the High Court consists of single judge, division bench is of two
judges and the bench consisted of more than two judges is called full bench. The
decision of larger bench is binding on smaller as well as coordinate bench.

13. THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM
 In the United States, which uses a common law system in its state courts and to a
lesser extent in its federal courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated:
Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an
abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to
decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means,
literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or
keep to what was said." Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi — "to keep to the
rationes decidendi of past cases." Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is
important only for what it decides — for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the
"how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision,
for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.
 In other words, stare decisis applies to the holding of a case, rather than to obiter dicta
("things said by the way"). As the United States Supreme Court has put it: "dicta may be
followed if sufficiently persuasive but are not binding."

15.  In the United States Supreme Court, the principle of stare decisis is
most flexible in constitutional cases:
 Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is
more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that
it be settled right. ... But in cases involving the Federal Constitution,
where correction through legislative action is practically impossible,
this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. ... This is
strikingly true of cases under the due process clause.
—Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406–407, 410
(1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

16. In the United States and England, the Common Law has
traditionally adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as
sources of law. This principle, known as stare decisis,
distinguishes the common law from civil-law systems, which give
great weight to codes of laws and the opinions of scholars
explaining them. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered
a question, the same question in other cases must elicit the
same response from the same court or lower courts in that
jurisdiction.

17. The principle of stare decisis was not always applied with uniform
strictness. In medieval England, common-law courts looked to
earlier cases for guidance, but they could reject those they
considered bad law. Courts also placed less than complete reliance
on prior decisions because there was a lack of reliable written
reports of cases. Official reports of cases heard in various courts
began to appear in the United States in the early 1800s, but semi-
official reports were not produced in England until 1865. When
published reports became available, lawyers and judges finally had
direct access to cases and could more accurately interpret prior
decisions.

18. For stare decisis to be effective, each
jurisdiction must have one highest court to
declare what the law is in a precedent-setting
case. The U.S. Supreme Court and the state
supreme courts serve as precedential bodies,
resolving conflicting interpretations of law or
dealing with issues of first impression.
Whatever these courts decide becomes
judicial precedent.

19. In the United States, courts seek to follow
precedent whenever possible, seeking to
maintain stability and continuity in the law.
Devotion to stare decisis is considered a
mark of judicial restraint, limiting a judge's
ability to determine the outcome of a case in
a way that he or she might choose if it were
a matter of first impression.

20. The use of precedent by courts in the United States of
America should be viewed as a tradition or a practice, rather
than a legal doctrine in the strictest sense of the word,
because it is so deeply embedded in the culture of the legal
profession and the judiciary that it takes place without much
reflection by judges. In its simplest and most important
sense, the doctrine of stare decisis requires all tribunals of
inferior jurisdiction to follow the precedents of courts of
superior jurisdiction, to accept the law as declared by superior
courts, and not to attempt to overrule their decisions.
American lawyers have come to believe that “[t]he slightest
deviation from this rigid rule would destroy the sanctity of the
judicial practice. There would be no finality or stability in the
law and the court system would be chaotic in its operation
and unstable and inconsistent in its decisions.”