LAW REPORTING IN INDIA

INRODUCTION

According to theory of Precedent and the theory of stare decisis, the law pronounced
by the Superior Court of the Country is followed by its subordinate Courts. A judicial
precedent of the Supreme Court of India is authoritative in relation to all the High
Courts and subordinate Courts in India. The reporting of the precedents of the
superior court is called Law Reporting.

The concept of law reporting is one passed onto us by the Englishmen. Stare decisis
is a common law principle that dictates that an existing precedent must be followed.
In other words, something that has already been established shall not be changed or
disturbed. Of course, this does not mean that new precedents cannot be set.

Law reporting developed with the objective of providing information regarding new
precedents set in cases to law officials of various posts. Essentially, these publications
highlight the establishment of new precedents which may aid in supporting other
cases with similar facts.

FORM AND TYPES OF LAW EPORTING

 On the basis of length and language:

1. Full-Text Law Reports

These reports incorporate the entire judgement that has been given by the court
along with a head note which includes the summary of the judgement. These reports
are often cited in preference to summary reports.

2. Summary Reports

Summary reports are those law reports which only include the summary of the case
as seen in case digests. These are also comparatively less formal as compared to the
full-text reports.

 Reports may also be classified on the basis of whether they are official or
privately published:
1. Official Reports

Official reports are those which are published by the authorities. They are not very
popular even today, since they are updated slowly and often quite expensive. One
such official law report in India is Indian Law Reports.

2. Non-Official Reports

These are privately published law reports. These days, non-official reports are often
favoured over official reports due to the speedy publication. However, since they are
privately published, they may charge a high fee for providing their services.
Moreover, non-official reports tend to be repetitive, i.e., they may undermine the
purpose of a law report which is to provide information on new precedents.

 On the basis of geographical context:

1. All India Reports

These reports, official or non-official, accumulate and publish precedents from across
states. Such reports will contain precedents set in the Supreme Court, High of
Madras or High Court of Maharashtra and so on. All India Reporter is an example of a
non-official all India report while Indian Law Reports would be an example of an
official law report.

2. State Specific Reports

These reports are confined to a particular state. They publish precedents set only in
the assigned state, such as the Allahabad Weekly Reporter (non-official) or ILR Patna
(official).

 There are also certain Special Law Reports which are published keeping in
mind a particular legal field or aspect. These Law Reports accumulate
information regarding one particular issue or field, such as labour law or
company law and publish new precedents established in these fields alone.
Examples of this would be Income Tax Reports or Labour Law Journals.

LAW REPORTING DURING THE BRITISH ERA INDIA:

The theories of Precedent, Stare decisis, Ratio decidendi, Obiter Dicta, etc. have been
developed in Britain. Step by step the British judicial system was introduced in India by East
India Company and later by the Crown. As part and parcel of the British judicial system, the
theories of precedent, stare decisis etc. were also introduced in India.
  Supreme Court at Calcutta:

The Supreme Court at Calcutta was established in 1774. At that time law reporting did not
take a correct shape. It was irregular, unorganized and un-systematic. Private persons took
active part in law reporting. The Government did not take any active steps in laws reporting.

 Sadar Diwani Adalats:

The First Law Commission suggested for the proper codification and law reporting of the
cases decided previously by Sadar Diwani Adalats. Sir William Hay Macnaghten, Registrar of
the Adalat compiled seven volumes of cases from 1791 to 1849, pertaining to the Sadar
Diwani Adalat at Calcutta.

 High Courts:

The Indian High Courts Act, 1861 made the provisions for the establishments of the High
Courts in various provinces. The judgments of the High Court got recognition in quantity and
quality. The Madras High Court published the cases in eight volumes covering from 1862 to
1875. In similar way, the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts also published well edited case-
laws in 12 to 15 volumes respectively. Other High Courts also published their edited case-
Laws in volumes.

 Privy Council:

The important judgments of the Privy Council were reported in 77 Volumes from 1872 to
1950.

 Federal Court:

It was started in 1935 and continued till 1949. The Federal Court Report publishes all
important judgments given by the Federal Court.

THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS ACT, 1875

There were a large number of private publications entered in law, created complexity,
Competition and manifold drawbacks. Some of the cases reported were good and genuine,
but majority of the cases reported contained nothing new law points but repetition. To
charge high, the private publication accumulated every case and began to sell in bounded
volumes at the rate of Rs. 250/- per one year. Like this, they began to exploit the legal
practitioners. Some of the law reporters were not giving case facts, and simply giving
Judgments.

They did not mention what the actual new points were delivered by the judgments and how
they would act as precedents in future. Their motto was profit only. Sir James Fitzjames
Stephen, Law Member of the Government of India and Sir Hobhouse, Law Member, were
unhappy with the trend of law reporting. They wrote the Government and explaining the
situation. As a result, the Indian Law Reports Act, 1875 was enacted.

NON-OFFICIAL REPORTS:

The Act of 1875 could not suppress non-official reports. The main reasons was, delay in
official reporting, incompleteness, costliness, rigid bureaucracy, etc effected on official
reporting. Due to these reasons, non-official reports continued to be in existence and were
giving high competition to the official reports. The non-official Reports began to get fame in
the Bar and Bench. Some of these are worthwhile to mention, viz. The Madras Law Journal
(MLJ), Allahabad Law Journal (ALJ), the All India Reporter (AIR), etc.

LAW REPORTING IN INDIA AFTER INDEPENDENCE:

After independence, the law reporting institutions increase in number. Now there are more
than one Law reporting Journal for every High Court and also for the Supreme Court of
India.

 Supreme Court of India:

In place of the Federal Court and Privy Council, the Supreme Court of India was established
at Delhi in 1950. There are several reporters reporting the Supreme Court judgments such
as All India Reporter, the Madras Law Journal, Supreme Court Journal (SCJ), Supreme Court
weekly Reports, etc.

MERITS OF LAW REPORTING:

DEMERITS OF LAW REPORTING:

 Commercial Nature: The private law reporting institutions generally have commercial
nature and aspects. This commercial nature kills the originality of the nature of the
judgments.

 Unhealthy Competition: Between the private law reporters, there is highly unhealthy
competition.
  Vast Cases: To increase the size of volumes, the private publications give a large
number of cases, which are in fact necessary. The cases decided on the similar facts
and on the similar points of law have been repeated. This consumes too much time
and huge money of the Advocate and Judges.

 Poor Quality: There is high possibility of poor quality in the private reporting. Some
of the Law Reporters contain the interlocutory matters with no final adjudication.
Repetitiveness and overlapping etc. are common.

 Inadequate official Reports: The Official reports are inadequate and are having short-
comings. They are very expensive and very slow. Bureaucracy kills the official
reports. They are not reported regularly and punctually. They are most costly.

THE PRESENT SCENARIO AND NEED FOR REFORMS

Law Reporting has come a long way in India. Over the past few decades, there have also
been attempts to infuse technology and the Internet to report on legal advancements.
However, there is much that can still be done to improve the existing reporting methods.
The official law reports, unfortunately, have not been able to deliver efficiently. Moreover,
law reporting journals can be quite expensive for an individual.

The Internet and technology today have improved to an extent that any new precedents set
can be reported within the same day. Of course, detailed reports take time to research and
develop. However, the gist here is that law reporting can be made much more efficient and
perhaps, also appeal to a wider audience if it was accessible by more people.

It has become necessary that precedents and advancements be reported on immediately.

CONCLUSION:

Despite of its demerits, law reporting in India is progressing day by day. It serves everybody
and well experienced Advocates, and well eminent judges. We find sometimes duplication
and triplication, the same Judgment being reported in two or three different law journals.
Great care should be exercised before any case is reported by which subordinate courts and
priority should be bound until it is modified or overruled.