However, this is not binding on cases of Federal Courts, or by Courts of other States or country.
The principle of stare decisis can be split into two parts. The first is the rule that a decision made by a higher court is a binding precedent, which a lower court cannot overrule. The second dictum is that a court should not upset its own precedents unless there is valid reason to do so. This needs to be motivated by principles from similar and lower courts.
Under English legal system, judges are not justified to make their own decisions about the development, or interpretations of law. They may, or may not be held by a ruling made in a previous case. Two facts are important in finding out whether a precedent is binding:
One of the main disadvantages of the use of precedents is that there is no mental exercise on the part of judiciary and it may not do the best brand of justice that could be rendered in a specific case. When a jury takes a decision based on previous case ruling, it has not exercised its own discretionary and discriminative powers, and, in a way has just copied its predecessor by way of issue of legal judgment. Whether there are sufficient reasons to believe that both the cases are similar for a common ruling is another matter, to be tried by the Court of Appeal or any other competent legal body.
Precedent has a very important role in the common law. It ensures firmness, uniformity, logical sequence and expansion of the law. At the same time, it can be rigid and complex - what is "the law" on a subject may be very difficult to find or to state as it is often spread across many cases with varying degrees of intricacies. The law is also easier to find and state and is rationally prospective rather than based on the chance event of litigation, which may give rise to laws based on extreme or unusual situations, or erratically argued cases.
Precedent is dependent upon written record of cases:
Precede means that the judges have to place before consideration before granting verdict, the full accounts of the case history and other relating matters to the subject. Therefore, it could be argued that, in the absence of such matters and documents, the order of precedent may not be established. The second dictum is that a court should not upset its own precedents therefore, records are a sine quo non, which must be present to enforce legal pronouncements. Necessary documentary evidence may be needed before precedents could be established. Before the concept of precedent lays down previous similar decision, it