The following is a statement about Ecuador. What similarities or differences do you find between this example and judicial system in India?

“It would be helpful if a body of common law or judicial precedent, existed that could clarify a journalist’s rights. Unfortunately, Ecuador’s courts don’t work that way. Judges are not forced to respect the rulings of higher courts in previous cases. Unlike the US, an appellate judge in Ecuador (or elsewhere in South America, for that matter) need not provide a written decision explaining the legal basis of a ruling. A judge may rule one way today and the opposite way, in a similar case, tomorrow, without explaining why.”

There is no similarity in this example and the judicial system in India. In India, the judicial decisions are the important sources of law. Judicial decisions of the eminent judges become precedents and the other courts generally follow them as rigidly as the laws passed by the legislature. The judges give their own interpretation and in the light of these interpretations decide the cases. Hence they expand or modify laws. The rulings of the Supreme Court, High Court, etc. are often quoted by lawyers with effect and authority. In the above said example that it would be helpful if a body of common law or judicial precedent existed that could clarify a journalist’s rights. But the Ecuador’s court don’t work in such a manner. The judicial decisions do not become the precedents and the judge may rule one way today and the other way tomorrow without explaining why.