Mapping informality in judicial decision-making

Constitutional and Apex Courts are generally considered to be majorly constrained by formal rules foreseen in Constitutions and statutes. Nonetheless, commonly, Courts rely on rules resulting from practices, traditions, and unwritten customs in solving cases. While some attention has recently been devoted to patronage mechanisms and judicial networks, informal mechanisms within judicial decision-making remain largely unexplored. This paper attempts to portray how informal institutions are not only involved but may be determinative in how certain Courts resolve cases. Based on examples of several jurisdictions, the paper delves into the informal rules involved previously during and ex post judicial deliberation. The paper will posit that the softer nature of informal rules provides a broad margin to several key judicial actors vested with specific competences to disproportionately influence decision-making, such as court presidents, Judge-Rapporteurs, and even single Judges.