What happened in University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Service is pretty rare.[1] I doubt if we will see a repeat of that one.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oxford_v._Ramesh...
This is tangential, but deference to precedent has become a huge problem in US and UK Commmon Law. So much case law has built up over the centuries that you can find a precedent to support almost any position! The "legal research" battle -- like the "discovery" battle -- just adds tremendous time, expense, and complexity, and rarely or indeed almost never benefits the litigants or the court.
As for precedent, yes, things accumulate over time, but by-and-large precedent = predictability. And that is completely missing from our system.
As someone who works in the UK system, I can point to two things I don't like about the US system. Firstly, the inability to recover costs in most cases. This leads to an abundance of litigation (because a party with a weak case has little to lose by trying anyway). It also produces unfair results (because the principle of justice should put the winner in the position they would have been if they hadn't been wronged, but it doesn't because they have to bear their litigation costs). Secondly, the politicisation (and in my view corruption) of the judicial system. We don't have "Conservative" or "Labour" judges here, and it's extremely weird to me that you can have "Republican" or "Democrat" judges given that a judge is supposed to just interpret the law in an unbiased way without regard to their political opinion. To me it seems that Supreme Court decisions are openly corrupt given how often the opinions are divided straight down party lines: statistically you should expect a random mix of Republican and Democrat judges adopting each side.
I was comparing the Indian system to the UK and US ones. I will still take the US system, warts and all, over the Indian or UK one.
I used to be a free speech absolutist in the past. Not anymore, though I still prefer more free speech to less. The UK and India are terrible at protecting free speech. And the laws dealing with defamation/libel are bonkers based on what Simon Singh had to go through.
The second issue I have is with handling of violent crime in general and that by juveniles in particular. The Nirbhaya case is a great/famous example (and the special treatment continues to this day)[1]. Four were hanged. The fifth died in police custody. The sixth rapist-murderer was 17y6m old and was sent to a juvenile home. You have something similar in the UK. In the US, all of them would have faced severe consequences.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_and_murde...
I thought we were talking about the legal system, not the laws themselves. You can have a great legal system with terrible laws, or a terrible legal system with great laws. You can't blame the legal system for the fact that Parliament decides to pass a law which restricts free speech: it's not the role of the judiciary to decide what laws should be passed; rather, the role of a well functioning judiciary is to ensure that it applies and interprets the law (as it finds it) accurately and fairly regardless of the content of that law.