Declaration that judgment not to operate as precedent

--- Declaration that judgment not to operate as precedent --- Impermissibility --- Judicial accountability --- Uncertainty and arbitrariness --- Limitation matters --- Waiver on compassionate grounds --- Limits of judicial discretion --- Scope --- When a court, at the moment it decides a case, tries to limit the reach of its own ruling by stating that it should not serve as a precedent for the future, while still recognizing a right in the case before it, the court withdraws from responsibility for the broader consequences of its judgment. Such self-imposed insulation suggests a decision unwilling to face public scrutiny, academic engagement, or the test of legal principles. So, the consequence is not restraint, but uncertainty. Allowing such a practice would invite uncertainty and encourage judicial arbitrariness. In many cases before the Supreme Court and lower courts, issues of limitation are raised, and lawyers often seek relaxation on compassionate grounds. What restrains courts from adopting an overly lenient approach in such cases is the concern that disregarding limitation periods would create improper judicial precedents. We note that it would be easy to say that the limitation period is waived due to the unique facts of a case and that the decision should not apply to future cases. However, this approach would give judges unchecked discretion to decide cases as they please and then avoid accountability simply by declaring that their rulings are not to be followed as precedent.