Legal Methods 12th October, 2021

Topic: Ratio and its Controversies (Nick Robinson, Judicial Architecture, Oxford Handbook
of the Indian Constitution) (Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Cooperation)

RATIO:

I. Doctrine of Precedent – higher courts bind lower courts – some courts bind
themselves (higher benches bind lower benches)
II. In supreme court, co-equal benches bind each other.
III. Not every part of a legal opinion has equal legal weight.
IV. Crucial to distinguish between ratio decidendi (ratio) and obiter dicta (obiter)

Binding part Non-Binding part

V. Nature of Ratio:
1. Reason for the decision.
2. Principle upon which case is decided.
3. Found in central legal decision of the case.
4. Not a fixed or stable concept, its dynamic.
5. Identifying ratio – multiple readings of legal opinion and choosing between
several possibilities.
6. Identifying the ratio is a creative enterprise – involves multiple act interpretation.
7. More general the facts, greater number of subsequent cases will fall within the
principle it formulates.
8. More specific the facts, fewer number of subsequent cases will fall in the principle
it formulates.
9. Comments in a subsequent case – ratio would become narrow
VI. Supreme Court and its Polyvocality:
1. Has multiple benches with the intent of increasing access.
2. Usually sits in benches of 2.
3. Constitutional benches of 5 and more
4. Often speaks in multiple voices – polyvocal
5. SC precedent binding on other courts as well on smaller or same sized benches of
the same court.
6. Described as lacking precedential consciousness – uncertainty and
unpredictability
7. Larger benches clarify conflicts between smaller benches
8. As judgements become longer and concurring opinions become common,
determining ratio becomes way more challenging

Goodhart, the Ratio Decidendi of a Case, Yale LJ

Goodhart on Ratio and Material Facts:
 I. Ratio can be discerned by taking into account material facts of the case and decisions
based on those facts.
II. Immaterial unless there is reason to contrary – person, time, place, kind and amount
III. Judges and advocates concentrate on law as related to the material facts
IV. Determination of material facts – an exercise in itself - requires multiple readings of
legal opinion

Descriptive Ratio: used to describe the way in which the earlier judge reached the decision.
Prescriptive Ratio: statement of law derived from a case, which the case prescribes as being
the law for later courts to follow.

Possibility of Multiple Ratios (Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dictum, NUJS Legal Methods Module):
I. Sometimes a case may have multiple ratios.
II. Judges in these cases base their decision on more than one line of legal reasoning.
III. Multiple legal principles emerge from such cases.
IV. Subsequent courts cannot pick and choose the ratio, as all ratios will be binding, in
similar cases or in case where that principle of law is applicable.
V. Multiple ratios are often present judgements that have concurring opinions i.e.,
plurality of opinions.

Krishnaswamy and Khosla, Reading a Thakur …...

Identifying the Ratio:
I. It is an exercise in interpretation
II. Cannot be identified with mathematical precision
III. There may be different opinions about what constitutes a ratio
IV. Reader will have to read the judgement a few times and carefully analyze it to find the
ratio or ratios.
V. Identifying may be particularly difficult when there are concurring opinions

OBITER:

I. Everything that is not a ratio

II. Obiter Dicta is non-binding
III. Doctrine of precedent does not apply
IV. No direct relationship with the resolution of the issue at hand
V. Does not give rise to general principles of law
 VI. Generally, the court will deliver dicta without giving the same careful consideration
that is required for the central aspects of the case.
VII. Obiters may have persuasive value even if they are non-binding.
(Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dictum, NUJS Legal Methods Module)

Techniques Used in Handling Ratios:

Following, Approving, Applying
I. Earlier decision is followed where the facts of the case are sufficiently similar for the
judge to be persuaded that the legal principle of the earlier decision is applicable in
the case.
II. If the latter court is a higher court, then the legal principle is said to be approved and
not followed.
Overruling
I. If the latter court is hierarchically superior, and is of the opinion that the earlier
decision is wrong and should not be followed, it can overrule the earlier decision.
II. An overruled loses the power to bind the courts in the future.
Distinguishing
I. If the material facts of the earlier case are different than those of the latter case, then
the court may distinguish the facts and not apply the legal principle laid out in the
earlier case.