Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija warns that the Supreme Court's increasing tendency to overturn settled precedents is creating grave legal uncertainty and undermining the Rule of Law.
- The Supreme Court is increasingly deviating from the doctrine of 'Stare Decisis' (standing by decided matters).
- Legal certainty is a cornerstone of the Rule of Law, as emphasized by thinkers from Aristotle to Lon L. Fuller.
- The Indore Development Authority (2020) ruling is cited as a prime example of judicial inconsistency in land acquisition laws.
- A structured internal discipline is required to correct judicial errors without causing systemic chaos.
India possesses one of the world's most extensive and complex legal systems. Under Article 141 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is mandated to adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis—captured in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere, meaning 'stand by things decided and not disturb settled matters.' However, Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija argues that the Court is increasingly 'muddying still waters' by flip-flopping on its rulings, a trend that threatens the very foundation of legal predictability.
The certainty of law is not merely a technicality but a fundamental requirement of the Rule of Law. From Aristotle to Montesquieu, political philosophers have stressed that for law to be just, it must be stable. Lon L. Fuller, in his seminal work 'The Morality of Law' (1964), identified consistency and stability as one of the eight essential principles for maintaining the inner morality of any legal system.
Why This Matters
BozokMedia analysis shows that judicial inconsistency creates a vacuum of authority. When the highest court in the land oscillates between opposing interpretations of the same law, it leaves litigants, lower courts, and the state in a state of perpetual ambiguity. This 'flip-flop' culture transforms the law from a shield of protection into a source of unpredictability, effectively eroding public trust in judicial finality.
A stark example of this is seen in the cases related to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013. Initially, the Supreme Court provided beneficial interpretations to protect landowners. However, the 2020 Indore Development Authority judgment shifted the needle toward maximizing State acquisitions, watering down procedural safeguards. This shift is perceived by many as the imposition of a personal judicial philosophy over settled legal spirit, creating a havoc that only a larger bench can now resolve.
Judicial exegesis is unavoidable with reference to an organic act like our Constitution, but the ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.
It is important to note that the law cannot be static. Dissenting views often enrich the law; for instance, Justice H.R. Khanna’s courageous dissent in ADM Jabalpur (1976) was eventually vindicated decades later in the K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) privacy judgment. Correcting a doctrinal wrong is a necessity, but the process must be transparent and methodical.
The Court requires elasticity, but this must be governed by internal discipline. As established in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra (2004), if a smaller bench doubts a previous decision, the only proper course is to refer the matter to a larger Bench rather than unilaterally overturning a precedent.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the significance of Article 141 in the Indian Constitution?
Article 141 mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India, ensuring legal uniformity.
2. Can a Supreme Court judgment be overturned?
Yes, a judgment can be overturned if a larger bench of the Supreme Court finds the previous interpretation to be erroneous or if the legal landscape has shifted significantly.
