Stare decisis is a Latin maxim that translates to “to stand by things decided.” It is one of the most foundational doctrines of the common law system, shaping how courts reason, decide, and justify outcomes in legal disputes. At its core, stare decisis promotes consistency, predictability, and stability in the law by obligating courts to follow established judicial precedents when adjudicating similar cases.

What Is Stare Decisis?

Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that requires courts to adhere to principles established in earlier judicial decisions when the same or materially similar legal issues arise. In essence, it mandates that like cases be treated alike. This doctrine ensures continuity in judicial decision-making and guards against arbitrary departures from settled law.

Under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts look to past decisions, known as precedents, to guide their future rulings. A precedent is a legal principle or rule articulated by a court in deciding a case, which subsequently serves as an authoritative guide for future cases involving comparable facts or legal questions. The combined operation of precedent and stare decisis is what fundamentally distinguishes common law systems from civil law systems.

What Makes a Precedent?

A judicial decision becomes a precedent when it establishes a legal principle that can be applied in future cases. Often, a novel or unique case, one with limited or no prior authority, results in a precedent when the court articulates a new rule or interpretation of law.

Under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts are generally bound by:

• Their own prior decisions, and

• The decisions of higher courts within the same judicial hierarchy.

However, precedents are not immutable. A court of the same hierarchical level may depart from or overrule a precedent of its own or a parallel court where there are significant legal developments or compelling reasons to do so. In such circumstances, the earlier precedent loses its authority, and the newer ruling becomes the governing precedent for future cases.

Types of Precedent

There are two principal types of precedent:

• Binding Precedent
  A binding precedent is one that a court is legally obliged to follow. Typically, decisions of superior courts are binding on lower courts within the same jurisdiction.

• Persuasive Precedent
  A persuasive precedent does not compel a court but may influence its reasoning. Decisions from courts of equal standing, foreign jurisdictions, or lower courts often fall into this category.

The extent to which a precedent must be followed depends on several factors, including: the hierarchical relationship between the courts, the similarity of facts and legal issues, and the time elapsed since the decision was rendered. While courts are bound by the decisions of superior courts, they are not bound by the decisions of inferior courts. Precedents from parallel courts may be persuasive but can be reconsidered or overturned.

Example

In the United States, courts within the State of Kansas are bound by precedents set by the Kansas Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. However, Kansas courts are not obligated to follow decisions of courts from other states, such as California. That said, in the absence of binding authority, particularly in novel cases, Kansas courts may look to precedents from other states as persuasive guidance. Such reliance can assist the court in shaping its own precedent while remaining within its jurisdictional autonomy. At the apex of the judicial hierarchy, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions are binding on all lower federal and state courts. When the Supreme Court overturns a prior ruling, the new decision replaces the earlier precedent and becomes the authoritative rule to be followed nationwide.

Historical Development

The doctrine of stare decisis originated in 12th-century England during the reign of King Henry II, who established a unified system of royal courts. This system, later known as the common law, relied heavily on judicial decisions as authoritative sources of law. Judges across different regions respected and applied earlier rulings to ensure uniformity in legal outcomes. As English colonists migrated to America, they brought the common law tradition with them, including the principle of stare decisis. Over time, this principle evolved into what is now referred to as binding precedent or binding authority. Historically, stare decisis was applied with less rigidity. Medieval courts often consulted earlier cases but did not consider themselves strictly bound by them, particularly due to the absence of reliable written records. The publication of official law reports in the 19th century significantly strengthened the doctrine by enabling judges and lawyers to accurately reference and interpret prior decisions.

Importance of the Doctrine

Stare decisis plays a critical role in maintaining respect for the rule of law and restraining judicial discretion. In constitutional adjudication, the mere belief that a prior decision was incorrectly decided is insufficient to justify overruling it. Courts, particularly supreme or constitutional courts, must identify a special justification to depart from established precedent. From a practical perspective, the doctrine ensures legal stability. Predictable and settled law enables individuals to regulate their conduct with confidence and allows legal practitioners to provide reliable advice. As William Blackstone famously observed, stare decisis “keeps the scale of justice even and steady,” fostering certainty in both personal and professional affairs.

Stare Decisis in Pakistan: Judicial Precedent and Constitutional Continuity

In Pakistan, the doctrine of stare decisis operates as a central pillar of constitutional adjudication and common law reasoning. Under Article 189 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all other courts in Pakistan. This constitutional mandate gives stare decisis explicit legal force, transforming precedent from a judicial convention into a constitutional obligation. Similarly, High Court judgments are binding on subordinate courts within their respective territorial jurisdictions. Pakistani courts have repeatedly emphasized that deviation from precedent is permissible only where there are compelling reasons, such as:

• A precedent being per incuriam (decided in ignorance of law),

• A clear conflict with constitutional provisions, or

• Significant legal or social developments necessitating reinterpretation.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has consistently held that judicial consistency is essential to uphold public confidence in the administration of justice. However, it has also asserted that stare decisis is not an inflexible doctrine. Where adherence to precedent perpetuates injustice or contradicts constitutional principles, the Court retains the authority to revisit and overrule prior decisions. Thus, in Pakistan, stare decisis reflects a careful balance between judicial restraint and constitutional dynamism, ensuring stability while allowing the law to evolve in response to changing societal needs.

Stare decisis is far more than a procedural rule; it is the backbone of judicial legitimacy in common law systems. By balancing respect for past decisions with the capacity for principled evolution, the doctrine ensures that the law remains both stable and responsive. Its careful application reinforces public trust in the judiciary and preserves the integrity of legal reasoning across generations.