Author– Dolly Jeswani, Nari Gursahani Law College, Ulhasnagar.

KEYWORDS:Legal Precedents, Privileges, Stare Decisis, Doctrine of Precedent, Judicial Review, Legal Evolution, Constitutional Law

ABSTRACT:This article explores the concept of privileges based on precedents in the context of the Indian legal system. Precedents are judicial decisions that guide the determination of similar cases in the future, fostering consistency, fairness, and predictability in the legal system. The paper examines how privileges, such as those protecting communication in attorney-client and doctor-patient relationships, evolve through precedents, and how they play an essential role in shaping legal doctrines. This article also highlights the challenges and limitations of these privileges, especially in an ever-evolving social and legal landscape, where the interpretation of precedents may either safeguard or restrict justice.

INTRODUCTION: Precedents are previous court decisions or rulings that serve as a guide or benchmark for deciding similar cases or issues. They are used to ensure consistency, fairness, and predictability in the application of the law. Precedents are the building blocks of the law, shaping the development of legal doctrine and guiding the decision-making process of courts. By examining the role of precedents in the legal system, we can gain a deeper understanding of how the law evolves and adapts to changing circumstances. The rule of precedent has been adopted from English jurisprudence into the Indian Constitution.

DEFINITIONS:
According to Salmond, a precedent is a judicial decision containing a legal principle with authoritative force, known as the “ratio decidendi,” which binds future courts in similar cases. 
The Doctrine of Stare Decisis, meaning “to stand by things decided,” is codified under Article 141 of the Constitution, ensuring consistency and predictability in legal adjudication by making the law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all courts. Stare decisis is a legal principle that requires courts to follow the precedents set by higher courts in similar cases, promoting consistency and predictability in the legal system. 

The research aims to provide an in-depth examination of how privileges based on precedents manifest across different fields—legal, institutional, and diplomatic. It investigates how these privileges evolve and the implications of their application, highlighting both the advantages and challenges of following precedents in decision-making processes.

LEGAL PRECEDENTS AND PRIVILEGES
Legal Precedents brings equality and fairness by means of treating similar cases in a similar manner. And the certainty of law and upholds the confidence of the citizens in the justice delivery system. With respect to the judiciary, it acts as a guideline to decide future cases based on similar facts. It ensures that the lower courts adhere to the interpretation of the law by the superior court in line with the changing needs of the society (the Vishaka guidelines in India)
Article 105 of the Indian Constitution protects the privileges of Parliament and its members, ensuring their freedom of speech and protection from legal proceedings, and providing them immunity in matters of legislative business. Similarly, Article 194 protects the privileges of state legislatures.
Clause (1) guarantees the right to free expression within the legislature, whereas Clause (2) specifically shields members’ speech and vote from all forms of legal action. Furthermore, as long as the dissemination of matters related to legislative business is carried out with the chamber’s consent, clause (2) precludes culpability. Clause (3), which gives Parliament the authority to specify its “powers, privileges, and immunities” in other areas, has generated a lot of debate. According to the original wording of Clause (3), privileges “shall be the same as those of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom as on the coming into force of the Constitution” in order to determine their existence.
The application of precedents is not limited to legislative frameworks but also extends to the interpretation and application of legal privileges in various contexts, such as attorney-client privilege and parliamentary immunity
PRECEDENTS REINFORCING PRIVILEGES IN COURT
The boundaries of legal privileges have been shaped over time by the regular use of precedents by courts to uphold or broaden these safeguards. Court rulings uphold preexisting rights, offer direction on how to use them, and make clear the restrictions on these safeguards.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
The case involved a challenge to the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which aimed to redistribute land from large landholders to small farmers and landless laborers. The petitioners, including Kesavananda Bharati, argued that the Act violated their fundamental rights, including the right to property.The Supreme Court of India, in a 7-6 majority decision, held that the Kerala Land Reforms Act was constitutional. However, the more significant aspect of the decision was the court’s pronouncement on the doctrine of precedent.
Doctrine of Precedent
The court held that the doctrine of precedent, also known as stare decisis, is a fundamental principle of the Indian legal system. The court stated that:
“The doctrine of precedent is a principle of evidence and is based on the assumption that a decision on a question of law is more likely to be correct if it is based on the collective wisdom of the judges who have considered the question over a period of time.” The court further held that precedents are binding on lower courts and tribunals, and that they should be followed unless there is a compelling reason to depart from them.
Impact on the Indian legal system

• Established the doctrine of precedent as a fundamental principle of the Indian legal system.
• Emphasized the importance of consistency and predictability in the application of the law.
• Provided guidance on when and how precedents can be departed from.
  S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) is a landmark case in the Indian legal system, primarily dealing with the scope and limits of the power of the President to dismiss a state government and dissolve the state legislature under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution (known as the President’s Rule). However, this case is significant in the context of privileges based on precedents due to its analysis of constitutional law, the principles of federalism, and the judicial review of executive actions and highlight the role of judicial precedents in shaping legal principles, including the limits of executive power and the constitutional protections for state governments, reinforced the importance of precedents in constitutional law, particularly the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), which established the “basic structure” doctrine, meaning that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be amended or altered. The Bommai case built upon this precedent to assert that the federal structure of India is a part of the basic structure, and any attempt to undermine it through the misuse of Article 356 would be unconstitutional. A significant precedent regarding the judicial review of presidential decisions under Article 356. This precedent has since been referred to in cases where the imposition of President’s Rule has been questioned. The judgment’s establishment of safeguards against arbitrary decisions became a privilege for future state governments, as it ensured that any dismissal or dissolution under Article 356 would be subject to rigorous scrutiny.
• 
  CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS OF PRIVILEGES BASED ON PRECEDENTS
  Legal privileges, such as attorney-client privilege, doctor-patient privilege, and others, are established through judicial precedents and are meant to safeguard specific confidential relationships. However, there are several challenges and limitations that arise when applying these privileges, especially in the context of evolving legal landscapes and societal changes.
  
• 1.Changing Social and Legal Norms:
  As society evolves, so too do its values and expectations. Legal precedents that were established decades ago may no longer reflect current public policy or societal attitudes. For example, the increasing recognition of digital privacy and the rise of social media have introduced new complexities that traditional privileges did not contemplate. Precedents are often slow to adapt to new technological developments. For example, attorney-client privilege might be challenged when digital communications like emails or encrypted messages are involved, and courts may struggle to determine whether these forms of communication should be protected.
  
• 2.Balancing Privileges Against Other Legal Interests:
  Legal privileges are designed to protect certain communications, but this protection can sometimes conflict with other critical legal interests, such as the need for evidence in criminal cases. In some instances, the interests of justice may outweigh the need for confidentiality. Courts may find it challenging to balance the protection of privileged communications with the need to disclose information for the sake of justice, especially in cases involving serious criminal activity. For example, attorney-client privilege may be waived if the attorney is involved in the commission of a crime, as seen in the crime-fraud exception.
  
• 3.Misuse of Privileges: There is a risk that privileges can be misused to protect harmful or illegal behavior. As in the guidelines of D.k. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the guidelines can be misused to protect a accused from the punishment by showing Custodial violence and other such acts. Further there is a quote saying “Power Corrupts And Absolute power Corrupts Absolutely” it fits perfectly in this situation that’s why it is always important to have limitation on privileges as well as on duties.
  
• 4.Inconsistency in the Application of Privileges: The application of legal privileges can vary significantly depending on jurisdiction and the specific facts of a case. What is privileged in one jurisdiction may not be in another. Moreover, courts may interpret the scope of privileges differently. This inconsistency can lead to confusion and uncertainty. For instance, different courts may have different standards for what constitutes a “confidential” communication, especially in cases involving electronic communications or corporate structures where the boundaries of privilege are not always clear.
  
• 5.Increasing Complexity in Modern Legal Disputes:
  The increased complexity of communications (e.g., emails, cloud data, and text messages) makes it harder for courts to determine whether a particular communication is protected by privilege. Attorney-client privilege in corporate settings, for example, is now often contested when employees within a corporation communicate with legal counsel. Courts
  must apply precedents to new, intricate situations, making it challenging to maintain clarity.
  
• 6.Public Policy Exceptions to Privileges:
  Public policy exceptions to privileges refer to situations where the law allows for the disclosure of privileged information, despite the existence of a privilege, in order to serve a greater public interest. Courts often recognize exceptions to privileges in cases where there is a compelling public interest, such as preventing a crime or protecting a vulnerable individual. For example, the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege allows the disclosure of communications that were made in furtherance of a crime or fraud.

CONCLUSION:
Precedents play a vital role in shaping legal principles and ensuring consistency in the application of the law. However, the privileges based on precedents, while providing certainty and fairness, face significant challenges in light of evolving societal norms, technological advancements, and the complexities of modern legal disputes. Courts must balance the protection of legal privileges with other legal interests and ensure that these privileges are not misused. As society continues to change, the application of legal precedents will need to adapt to meet new challenges and continue to serve the greater interest of justice.