To what extent should the court priortize jurisprudential fidelity as against doing substantial justice

The extent to which a court should prioritize jurisprudential fidelity (strict adherence to legal principles and precedents) over substantial justice (achieving a fair and equitable outcome) is a core tension in law. Prioritizing fidelity ensures predictability, consistency, and upholds the rule of law, preventing arbitrary decisions. It maintains public confidence by showing that judges apply, not make, law. However, an overemphasis on fidelity can lead to harsh or unjust outcomes in unique circumstances, where a literal application of a rule might defeat the spirit of the law. Ultimately, courts strive for a balance. While fidelity provides stability, judges often use tools like purposive interpretation or equitable principles to achieve substantial justice without entirely abandoning established legal frameworks. The ideal balance depends on the specific case and the potential impact of the decision. What's next?