Precedent, stare decisis and the Larger Bench Rule: Judicial Indiscipline at the Indian Supreme Court

Abstract

ABSTRACT As a self-imposed norm of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court has held that a judgement may be overruled only by a bench larger than the bench which delivered the judgement. Being a facet of the doctrine of stare decisis, the “Larger Bench Rule” achieves certainty, equality, and efficiency in adjudication, and secures public legitimacy for the Court. The Rule also accords equal weight to the wisdom of every judge. But the Court has breached the Rule in some key cases. We trace seven instances where smaller or coordinate benches explicitly or impliedly overruled binding judgements. The Court did this, we show, by ignoring precedent, shoddily “distinguishing” precedent, expressly disagreeing with precedent on merits, or unfairly declaring the precedent invalid for itself contravening the Larger Bench Rule. Finally, we suggest – preliminarily – some measures to ensure adherence to the Rule in future.