RATIO DECIDENDI, OBITER DICTA, STARE DECISIS

When a written judicial opinion is made, it contains two elements:

(1) Ratio decidendi

(2) Obiter dicta.

Ratio decidendi is the Latin term meaning “the reason for the decision,” and refers to
statements of the critical facts and law of the case. These are vital to the court’s decision
itself. The binding part of a judicial decision is the ratio decidendi.

The Latin term obiter dicta means “things said by the way,” and is generally used in law
to refer to an opinion or non-necessary remark made by a judge.Obiter dicta are
additional observations, remarks, and opinions on other issues made by the judge. These
often explain the court’s rationale in coming to its decision and, while they may offer
guidance in similar matters in the future, they are not binding. In reading a court’s
decision, obiter dicta may be recognized by such words as “introduced by way of
analogy,” or “by way of illustration.” Obiter dicta may be as short as a brief aside or a
hypothetical example, or as long as a thorough discussion of relevant law. In either case,
the additional information is given to provide context for the judicial opinion. In a legal
ruling, made by a higher court, the actual decision becomes binding precedent. An obiter
dictum is not binding in later cases because it was not strictly relevant to the matter in
issue in the original case. However, an obiter dictum may be of persuasive (as opposed
to binding) authority in later cases.

A trouble emerges in that, in spite of the fact that the judge will give reasons behind his
judgment, he won’t generally say what the ratio decidendi is, and it is then up to a later
judge to “elicit” the ratio of the case. There may, in any case, be contradiction over what
the ratio is and there might be in excess of one ratio.

In a judgment conveyed by a court, what part is a binding precedent of reference as is

applicable in order to be exact with respect to what is at last awaiting suggestion to
different courts. What the court chooses, for the most part, is ratio decidendi or rule of
law which it is an authority. As against people, not parties to suit or proceeding general
rule of law that is ratio decidendi is restricting. The rule of law or ratio decidendi is that
what is connected and followed up on by the Courts. The ratio must be created by judges
while choosing cases before them.

TESTS TO DETERMINE RATIO: as done in class.

Difference between Ratio decidendi and Obiter dictum

The term ‘ratio decidendi’ contains the law in the precedent. ‘Obiter dicta’ are of little
legal authority. At best they amount to persuasive precedents.
 Ratio decidendi Obiter dictum
1. An obiter dictum is an
announcement made by a judge in course
1. Salmon defines: “the ratio decidendi may
of his judgment which may not be
be described roughly as the rule of law applied
unequivocally applicable to the issue
by and acted on by the court, or the rule which
before him.
the court regarded as governing the case.
2. Obiter dictum has no such binding
2. Ratio decidendi is more authoritative
authority.
than obiter dictum.

The Apex Court in the case of Arum Kumar Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(AIR 2011 SC 3056) held that obiter dicta is a mere observation or remark made by the
Court, by way of aid, while deciding the actual issue before it. The mere casual statement
or observation “which is not relevant, pertinent or essential to decide the issue in hand”,
the Court said, did not form the part of the judgment of the court and had no authorities
value.

Thus it can be well concluded by mentioning that obiter dictum is an opinion not
necessary to a judgment and is an observation as to the law made by a Judge in the course
of a case, but not necessary to its decision and therefore of no binding effect it is a
‘remark by the way’. It is the ratio decidendi which has the binding effect and the
precedent value.

Doctrine of Stare Decisis

1) Stare Decisis means stand by the things decided (do not unsettle the established)
2) It means adherence to precedents. Once a point of law has been decided in a particular
case, the same law must be applied in all future cases which contain the same material
facts. All courts are bound to follow the rule of law laid down by the courts above them.
Decisions of courts of coordinate jurisdiction have persuasive value.
3) It means that the courts must not change the law unless they absolutely have to in
order to prevent injustice.
4) This doctrine is also known as ‘the doctrine of precedent’.
5) Origin of the doctrine: common law, when the decisions of courts started being
reported. This doctrine is followed in India as well.
6) The operation of this doctrine presupposes the existence of a hierarchy of courts.
7) It brings about certainty, uniformity, consistency, predictability, stability in the law as
like cases decided in the like manner. This in turn helps to generate confidence in a legal
system. It also increases judicial efficiency by relieving courts of having to reinvent legal
principles for each case brought before them.
 8) But the doctrine is not to be applied so as to perpetuate a wrong when the court is
convinced that its previous decision was erroneous. The rule of stare decisis is not
imperative and inflexible. It can be departed from by the discretion of court for serving
larger public interest or for preventing grave injustice.
9) It has been stated by the Supreme Court of India that the doctrine is only a useful
servant; it must not be turned into a tyrannical master. It should not be followed blindly
as a command otherwise the decisions of courts will not be able to develop law according
to the changing needs of the society.

Application of the Stare Decisis in India Hierarchy of courts in India:

The lower most courts are the subordinate courts, which are the courts of first instance.
Above them are High courts and the Supreme Court is at the apex. Article 141 of the
Constitution of India states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding
on all courts within the territory of India. Thus, the decision of the Supreme Court is the
last word on interpretation of the Constitution or any other law; it is the law of the land.
1. The decision of Supreme Court is binding absolutely on all courts and tribunals in
India.
2. The decision of a High Court is binding on all courts and tribunals within its
jurisdiction.
3. The Supreme Court is not bound by its earlier decision.
4. The decision of one High Court is not binding on any other High Court but it has only
persuasive value.
5. A Single Bench Judge is bound by the decision of Division Bench of the same High
Court, but a Division Bench is not bound to follow a decision of the Single Bench of the
same High Court.
6. When single judge of the High Court is of the opinion that a previous decision of
another single judge of the same High Court was erroneous, he should refer the matter to
Divisional Bench rather than himself holding the previous decision as wrong. Similarly,
one Division Bench should not set aside a decision of another Division Bench of the
same High Court, but it must refer the matter to a full bench.
7. The judgments of English Courts and the Privy Council are not binding on the
Supreme Court, they only have persuasive value.