Examine the judicial principle of precedent (stare decisis) in the context of large Bench references, using the recent nine-judge Bench ruling on the definition of 'industry' as a case study.

Stare decisis — that courts stand by settled decisions — makes law predictable, and Article 141 binds all courts to the Supreme Court's declaration. A Bench doubting a precedent cannot overrule it; it must refer the question to a larger Bench. The nine-judge ruling on "industry" (20 August 2026) tests this discipline.

The doctrine and the reference mechanism

• Precedent protects reliance interests: employers, workers and tribunals order their conduct around a settled reading of the law.
• Reference to a larger Bench is the safety valve against fossilising an erroneous ruling, preserving hierarchy while allowing correction.
• Its cost is delay: doubt was voiced in State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh (2005, five judges), referred onward by a seven-judge Bench, and resolved only in 2026 [1] — two decades of uncertainty.

The 'industry' reference as a case study

• Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa (1978), a seven-judge Bench through Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, evolved the Triple Test under Section 2(j), ID Act, 1947 [2] — systematic activity, employer–employee cooperation, production of goods/services for human wants; profit motive irrelevant, only sovereign functions excluded.
• In 2026, a nine-judge Bench led by CJI Surya Kant refined the test by 5:4, prospectively, while unanimously directing that all pending ID Act references be decided on the pre-Code law, and that BWSSB not anchor Section 2(p) of the new Code [1].
• Justice B.V. Nagarathna, with three others, dissented that the reference was unnecessary — dissent itself being part of the precedential dialogue.

Implications

• Prospective overruling shows precedent can be modified without unsettling decided expectations.
• Statutory change limits precedent's reach: the ID Act stood repealed in November 2025 by the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 [3][4], so judicial gloss on a repealed text cannot automatically travel to a differently worded provision.
• Risk of an interpretive gap before tribunals until Section 2(p) is tested afresh.

The ruling illustrates that stare decisis is not rigidity but disciplined change — precedent yields only to a larger Bench, and even then prospectively. Time-bound listing of pending references and legislative clarity on definitions would reduce transitional uncertainty, strengthening both worker protection and ease of doing business consistent with Article 141's promise of certainty in law.