Common law systems are fundamentally based on the idea of judicial precedent. It is a crucial tool for the creation and implementation of the law, giving judges and other legal professionals legitimacy and direction. The doctrine of stare decisis, also known as judicial precedent, creates a system wherein earlier court rulings serve as conclusive precedents for subsequent cases.

The idea of judicial precedent is essential for preserving the consistency and stability of the law. Precedents act as reliable sources that influence how laws are interpreted, applied, and develop over time. Common law jurisdictions make sure that legal decisions are based on established precedents by upholding the principle of stare decisis. This strategy encourages consistency in the application of the law and offers some predictability for people and organizations using the legal system. Additionally, it enables courts to draw on earlier legal reasoning, streamlining the solution of related legal problems.

Through court decisions, who judges give in-depth justifications for their decisions and the legal theories they relied on, precedents are established. Lower courts are required to abide by these rulings as precedents in similar cases. The order of the courts within a jurisdiction affects how precedents are established, with higher courts setting precedents that are more significant.

Understanding the function of judicial precedent is crucial for engaging in legal analysis and argumentation, as well as for understanding how common law systems operate. It offers a framework for attorneys to apply legal principles, interpret statutes, and construct strong arguments based on previous case law. The judges to be free to decide contrary to decisions in decided cases, and then the law and the fate of the litigants would hang on the fancy of individual judges following.[1]

Defining Judicial Precedents
A precedent is a principle or a rule that was declared or laid down in a previous legal case.[2] The idea of judicial precedent is crucial in establishing legal authority within the framework of common law systems. It establishes a system where prior judicial rulings are considered when deciding new cases, ensuring legal consistency and stability.

The common law legal system is supported by judicial precedent, which guarantees that decisions are made by accepted principles and logic. To ensure consistency and predictability in the administration of justice, it enables courts to draw upon earlier rulings when dealing with similar legal issues. Common law jurisdictions respect the principle of stare decisis because it acknowledges the importance of precedent in upholding consistency and legal certainty.

Fundamentally, judicial precedent stands for the idea that cases with similar facts should be handled similarly. It demonstrates the idea that the law ought to develop gradually and incrementally, building on earlier rulings while allowing for adaptability to deal with shifting conditions. By referring to and applying established legal principles from earlier cases, courts can provide direction and consistency in their rulings. It serves as the cornerstone of legal analysis, allowing lawyers to interpret statutes, make compelling arguments, and reach wise decisions.

Doctrine Of Stare Decisis
In common law systems, the doctrine of stare decisis is a fundamental idea that is crucial for setting legal precedents, guaranteeing consistency and predictability in the way the law is applied, and more. The Latin phrase "stare decisis" means "to stand by things decided." According to this doctrine, a court's ruling on a specific issue is conclusive and sets a precedent that lower courts must follow in cases involving related legal issues in the future.

The idea that similar cases should be handled similarly is at the heart of the stare decisis doctrine. By ensuring that judicial decisions are founded on accepted ideas and logic, it embodies the idea of legal stability and certainty. Courts uphold the integrity and predictability of the legal system by adhering to the doctrine of stare decisis, offering direction to judges, attorneys, and those involved in legal proceedings.

According to this doctrine, precedents established by higher courts have an influence or a legal obligation on lower courts. Lower courts within the same jurisdiction must abide by binding precedents, establishing a hierarchical structure that establishes legal authority. The gradual evolution of legal principles over time is ensured by this hierarchy, which also guarantees consistency in legal interpretation and application.

The principle of stare decisis is applied by carefully examining earlier court rulings and assessing their applicability to the current situation. Courts may set aside precedent or closely follow it when the facts and legal questions line up by contrasting the facts or legal principles of a prior case. This subtle approach recognizes that each case may have circumstances that call for variations in the application of precedent, allowing for flexibility within the doctrine.

The principle of stare decisis goes beyond the fact that precedents are conclusive. Additionally, it acknowledges the importance of precedents from other countries or from courts at various levels of the same country. Although they are not binding, these convincing precedents may have an impact on judges' decision-making. This feature of the doctrine encourages communication between various jurisdictions and levels of courts and permits consideration of a wider variety of legal arguments. Courts uphold the doctrine of stare decisis and uphold the ideas of legal certainty and fairness within the common law framework by acknowledging the binding and persuasive authority of precedents.

Types Of Judicial Precedents:

1. Persuasive Precedents: A persuasive precedent is one which is not absolutely binding on a court, but which may be applied. They are court rulings from other jurisdictions or from various levels of the same jurisdiction that are not necessary for the court to follow. Persuasive precedents can still have an impact on the court's decision-making, though. When deciding how to rule in a case, judges may decide to use persuasive precedents as persuasive authority or useful guidance.
    
2. Original Precedents: Original precedents are judicial rulings that establish new legal rules or interpretations in a field of law that has not yet been settled. These precedents appear when a court is presented with a new legal issue or when previous precedents are unclear. By establishing new legal doctrines or extending preexisting principles to address new legal issues, original precedents help the law develop and evolve.
    
3. Declaratory Precedents: Declaratory precedents are court rulings that offer a clear and unambiguous explanation or interpretation of the law. They clarify an opaque or ambiguous legal issue by establishing a legal principle or rule. Declaratory precedents are used to define an individual or entity's rights, obligations, or legal relationships. These precedents frequently come up in situations where judges are asked for guidance on how to interpret or apply statutes or other legal rules. Declaratory precedents support clarity and direction for upcoming cases involving related legal issues.
    
4. Absolute Precedents: An absolute precedent, also referred to as a binding precedent, is a legal judgment that higher courts in the same jurisdiction must abide by. It creates a rule of law that lower courts must follow in cases with similar facts and legal issues in the future. Higher courts, such as appellate courts or the highest court in the jurisdiction, frequently establish absolute precedents. Unless there are exceptional circumstances or the precedent is rejected by a higher court, lower courts must adhere to the legal principles outlined in absolute precedents.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the importance of judicial precedent in common law systems cannot be overstated. To ensure consistency, predictability, and fairness in the application of the law, judicial precedent must be established. It provides a basis for legal reasoning and decision-making and permits the gradual evolution of legal principles over time.

The foundation of the common law system is the doctrine of stare decisis, which embodies the idea of adhering to precedents. Lower courts are required to abide by the hierarchical structure established by binding precedents established by higher courts. The consistency and uniformity of legal interpretation and application are preserved thanks to this hierarchy.

The stability, fairness, and adaptability of the legal system are ultimately ensured by the function of judicial precedent in common law systems. It strikes a balance between the requirement for consistency and the understanding that the law must change to accommodate changing social demands. By using precedents as a guide, the law continues to expand and change under the principles set forth by judicial decision-making.

End Notes:

1. Princy. A.F, Importance of Judicial Precedent- A Comparative Analysis, Legal Service India (June 14, 23) https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4751-importance-of-judicial-precedent-a-comparative-analysis.html
2. Tushitta Murali, Judicial precedent as a source of law, Blog ipleaders (28 Dec. 2020), https://blog.ipleaders.in/judicial-precedent-source-law/
3. All Answers ltd, Judicial Precedent Lecture 1 (Lawteacher.net, June 2023) https://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/judicial-precedent-1.php?vref=1 accessed 14 June 2023