‘Stare Decisis’ is a Latin phrase which means “to stand by decided cases; to uphold precedents; to maintain former adjudication.” SC in Paragraph 26-A, Indra Sawhney, (1992) 3 SCC 217 observed, in law, certainty/consistency/continuity are highly desirable features. Doctrine of Stare Decisis is not an ‘imprisonment of reason‘. Concepts are good servants but bad masters. Rules, which are originally designed to fit social needs, develop into concepts. It then proceeds to take on a life of their own to the detriment of legal development. The resulting jurisprudence of concepts produces a slot-machine approach to law whereby new points posing questions of social policy are decided, not by reference to the underlying social situation but, by reference to the meaning and definition of the legal concepts involved.

“The trend of judicial opinion, in our view, is, Stare Decisis is not a dogmatic rule allergic to logic and reason; it is a flexible principle of law operating in the province of precedents providing room to collaborate with the demands of changing times dictated by social needs, State policy and judicial conscience.”

– Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice R.C. Lahoti, Mirzapur Moti, (2005) 8 SCC 534.

Also see, Sri Jagannath Temple v. Siddha Math, [Civil Appeal No. 7729 of 2009] decided on 16.12.2015.

_____

Maganlal Chhaganlal (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, (1974) 2 SCC 402 observed, “A view which has been accepted for a long period of time should not be disturbed unless Court can say positively, it was wrong or unreasonable or it is productive of public hardship or inconvenience.” We find no error in Full Bench of High Court applying Doctrine of Stare Decisis to facts of present case inasmuch as it followed law which was consistently applied in more than 100 Judgments.

– Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, State of Haryana v. Jai Singh, [Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014] decided on 16.09.2025.

_____

When a Judgment minimizes a binding ratio, ignores missing statutory steps and seeks to distinguish on immaterial facts, it creates an appearance of a reluctance to accept precedent. Such an approach conveys a measure of pettiness that is inconsistent with detachment that judicial reasoning demands. In our view, this is an unfortunate departure from discipline of Stare Decisis.

– Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath, Rohan Vijay Nahar v. State of Maharashtra, Civil Appeal No. 5454 of 2019 decided on 07.10.2025.