The pros and cons of Doctrine of Stare Decisis

Supporters of the system argue that it makes decisions "predictable", that is, a business person can be assured of the same decision in the same sort of case. The argument most often used against the system is that it is undemocratic as it allows unelected legislators to make law, or that it preserves wrongly decided cases. Critics also sometimes accuse particular judges of applying the doctrine selectively, invoking it to support precedents which the judge supported anyway, but ignoring it in order to overturn precedents with which the judge disagreed.

The doctrine of stare decisis post some of the pros and cons below:

Flexible
It is sometimes said to be flexible. A judge is not so free where there is a binding precedent. Unless it can be distinguished he must follow it, even though he dislikes it or considers it bad law. His discretion is thereby limited and the alleged flexibility of case law becomes rigidity.

Avoids mistakes
It provides guidance based on the previous judges' experience. therefore, it prohibit the happening of wrong judgement by the judge itself if he was left to make the decision alone.

Greater certainty in the law
It can be considered as the most important advantage claimed for the doctrine of judicial precedent.

Causes injustice
The overruling of an earlier case may cause injustice to those who have ordered their affairs in reliance on it. Precedent may produce justice in the individual case but injustice in the generality of cases. It would be undesirable to treat a number of claimants unjustly simply because one binding case had laid down an unjust rule.

Limits development of the law
It is a limiting factor in the development of judge-made law. Practical law is founded on experience but the scope for further experience is restricted if the first case is binding.