Final but not infallible: The Supreme Court and the problem of its own errors

Judicial consistency is an essential part of the rule of law, and Article 141 of the Constitution of India reinforces this goal by making the decisions of the Supreme Court binding on all other courts. However, judicial precedents can be erroneous, creating institutional tensions between courts when they follow what appear to be incorrect decisions. This research paper has examined both doctrinal and institutional challenges to the use of erroneous precedents, including the limits on correcting erroneous lower court precedents, the impact of bench strength hierarchy, and some narrow exceptions like the doctrine of per incuriam. The research will not catalogue case law; instead, it will analyze the manner in which Indian jurisprudence strikes a balance between certainty and adaptability. The research also concludes that careful reforms are necessary to maintain predictability and enable timely correction of judicial errors within the confines of the Constitution. An analysis of select Supreme Court case law, particularly those cases in which the Supreme Court has used stare decisis or prospective overruling, reveals the need for a more flexible system for protecting the legitimacy of the judiciary.