JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

FACULTY OF LAW

JURISPRUDENCE - II

THE CONCEPT OF RATIO DECIDENDI AND OBITER DICTA

SUBMITTED TO-

DR. EAKRAMUDDIN MALIK

SUBMITTED BY-

MOHD KAMRAN ANSARI

B.A.LLB. (H) (REGULAR) V Sem.

BATCH- 2020- 2025

1|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................2

THE DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT.........................................................................................4

RATIO DECIDENDI.................................................................................................................6

How to determine Ratio Decidendi?......................................................................................7

Illustration of Ratio Decidendi..............................................................................................9

OBITER DICTA........................................................................................................................9

Illustration of Obiter Dictum...............................................................................................10

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RATIO DECIDENDI AND OBITER DICTA...........................11

JUDGEMENTS........................................................................................................................14

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................15

2|Page
INTRODUCTION

A judicial statement of what we normally refer to as a judgment in a legal case comprises of

two distinct components which are referred to as Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dicta.

 Ratio in Latin means the reason for the decision or judgment while obiter generally
refers to extra feelings or perceptions that are made on the issues that are associated
with the case.
 Obiter regularly reveals the rationale that the court has embraced to reach a
conclusion and it is the non-binding part of the judgment.

Ratio decidendi is the Latin term signifying “the reason for the decision,” and refers to
statements of the basic facts and law of the case. These are vital to the court’s decision itself.
Obiter dicta are extra observations, remarks, and opinions on other issues made by the judge.
These regularly clarify the court’s rationale in going to its decision and, while they may offer
direction in similar matters later on, they are not binding. In perusing a court’s decision,
obiter dicta might be perceived by such words as “introduced by way of analogy,” or “by way
of illustration.” Obiter dicta might be as short as a concise aside or a hypothetical example, or
as long as a thorough discussion of the relevant law. In either case, the extra information is
given to give a setting to the judicial opinion.1

The judge may proceed to speculate about what his decision would or may have been if the
facts of the case had been unique. This is an obiter proclamation. The binding a part of a
judgment is that the ratio decidendi. An obiter decree is not binding in later cases because it
was not strictly relevant to the matter in issue in the first case. Notwithstanding, an obiter
proclamation might be of persuasive (as opposed to binding) expert in later cases.

A difficulty emerges in that, in spite of the way that the judge will give reasons behind his
judgment, he will not for the most part say what the ratio decidendi is, and it is then
dependent upon a later judge to “elicit” the ratio of the case. There may, regardless, be
contradiction over what the ratio is and there may be in excess of one ratio.

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

relevant to be accurate with respect to what exactly is finally anticipating suggestion to
various courts. What the court chooses, for the most part, is ratio decidendi or rule of law
which it’s anything but a position. As against individuals, not parties to suit or continuing
1
Dr V.D Mahajan, JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL THEORY, 254 (Eastern Book Company, Lucknow
2007).

3|Page
general rule of law that is ratio decidendi is restricting. The rule of law or ratio decidendi is
that what can be associated and circled back to by the Court’s decision.

Professor Goodhart in 1930 kicked off the debate on what is the difference between ratio
decidendi and obiter dicta with his article Determining the Ratio Decidendi of a Case and the
legal academics have been arguing ever since. If the precedent judge doesn’t explicitly
announce the ratio then it is up to the future judges to figure it out. The reason for this,
according to Cross & Harris, is that if the mere act of declaring the ratio made it binding, then
judges would have infinite law-making power. They would be like gods among mere
humans. Cross & Harris write:

"If a judge has this amount of freedom to determine which of his observations is ratio
decidendi and which obiter dictum, is there not a grave danger that he will exercise an undue
influence on the future development of the law? He only has to state twenty propositions and
say that he bases his decision on each of them to have created twenty new legal rules."2

The Apex Court in the case of Arum Kumar Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 3 held that
obiter dictum 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.

In the case of Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union Of India4 the Apex Court while
stating about the relevancy of obiter dicta held that it is difficult to regard a word, clause or
an expression occurring in a judgment as the full exposition of law even if it is not answering
the direct questions of law to the case in hand.

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.

THE DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT

2
Rupert Cross and J. W. Harris, Precedent in English Law (Oxford University Press, 4th Ed, 1991) 42.
3
AIR 2011 SC 3056.
4
AIR 1971 SC 530.

4|Page
Judicial Precedents are an important source of law. They have enjoyed high authority at all
times and in all countries. Every developed legal system possesses a judicial organ. The main
function of the judicial organ is to adjudicate the rights and obligations of the citizens. In the
beginning, in this adjudication, the courts are guided by customs and their own sense of
justice. As society progresses, legislation becomes the main source of law and the judges
decide cases according to it. Even at this stage, the judges perform some creative function. In
the cases of the first impression, in the matters of interpretation, or in filling up any lacuna in
the law made by legislation the judges, to some extent, depend on their sense of right and
wrong and in doing so, they adopt the law to the changed conditions.5

Keeton states that: “A judicial precedent is a judicial decision to which authority in some
sense has been attached.”

According to Salmond, “In a loose sense, precedent includes merely reported case law
which may be cited & followed by courts.”

According to Gray, “Precedent covers everything said or done, which furnishes a rule for
subsequent practice.”

Judicial Precedent are the guidance or authority of past decisions for future cases. Only such
decisions which lay down some new rule or principle are called judicial precedents. The
application of such judicial decisions is governed by different principles in different legal
systems. These principles are called the ‘Doctrine of Precedent’. For this case to be held, first
such precedents must be reported, maybe cited and may probably be followed by courts.
Secondly, the precedent under certain circumstances must be followed.

The doctrine of precedent is a principle of following previous decisions of the Court within
its well-defined limits, it significantly declares that cases must be decided in same way when
the material facts are the same as it becomes “ratio decidendi”, in contradistinction to a
binding precedent, the Court has to be careful about the “obiter dictum” made by the Court in
the judgment as certain obiter dictum have persuasive value but they do not have any binding
force. “Obiter dictum” is a mere saying by the way, a chance remark, which is not binding on
the future courts, though it may be respected according to the reputation of the Judge, the
eminence of the Court and the circumstances in which it came to be pronounced. The reason
for not regarding an “obiter dictum” as binding as it was probably made without a full

5
Dr V.D Mahajan, JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL THEORY, 254(Eastern Book Company, Lucknow 2007).

5|Page
consideration of all the consequences that may follow; or the Court might not have expressed
a concluded opinion.

An interim order does not finally and conclusively decide an issue, such order cannot be a
precedent. The reasons normally assigned in support of such non-final interim order may only
contain prima facie findings, are only tentative. The interim directions issued on the basis of
such prima facie findings are temporary arrangements to preserve the status quo till the
matter is finally decided, to ensure that the matter does not become either infructuous or a fait
accompli before the final hearing. Thus, the interim order passed by a court is not a precedent
for other cases.

It is necessary to follow the law declared by the Supreme Court and a judgment of the Court
has to be read in context of questions which arose for consideration in the case in which the
judgment was delivered. An “obiter dictum” as distinguished from a “ratio decidendi” is an
observation by the Court on a legal question suggested in a case before it but not arising in
such manner as to require a decision. Such an obiter may not have an effect of a binding
precedent but it cannot be denied that it is of considerable weight.6

RATIO DECIDENDI

According to John Salmond: “A Precedent is a judicial decision which contains in itself a

principle. The underlying principle which thus forms its authoritative element is called ratio
decidendi. The concrete decision is binding upon the parties to it but it is the abstract ratio
decidendi which alone has the force of law as regards the world at large.”

This Latin term literally translates as the reason for the decision. The ratio decidendi of a
case is the principle of law on which a decision is based. The definition of Ratio Decidendi
was explicated in the case of Sir George Jessel in Osborne v. Rowlett7 as, “The only thing in
a Judge’s decision binding as an authority upon a subsequent Judge is the principle upon
which the case was decided”.

When a judge delivers judgement in a case, he outlines the facts which he finds to have been
proved on the evidence. Then he applies the law to those facts and arrives at a decision, for
which he gives the reason (ratio decidendi). It must be noted that ratio decidendi of a case is
not the actual decision, or order, like ‘guilty’ or ‘the defender is liable to pay compensation’.
Rather, it establishes a precedent, which is the rule of law used by the judge or judges in
6
Director of Settlements v. M.R. Apparao, (2002) 4 SCC 638.
7
(1880) 13 Ch D 774.

6|Page
deciding the legal problem raised by the facts of the case. This rule, which is an abstraction
from the facts of the case, is known as the ratio decidendi of the case.

Ratio Decidendi does include not the following things:

 The fact of the case.

 The law that the case applies.
 The order of the case.

Ratio Decidendi, instead, is the necessary step the judge must take to resolve the case. It is
that necessary step that will be the reason to decide a case. It must be a step to the conclusion
which is necessary and must be directly related to the issue. The ratio decidendi does not
originate from the dispute of the facts but the dispute of the laws. It is ratio decidendi that
lays down the precedent regarding any law or issue. It is quite ironic that when a ratio has
multiple reasoning behind it, all of that reasoning will be considered valid. The ratio
decidendi can be found in many ways in any judgment. These forms are usually: common
law rules, interpretation of the statute, or interpretation of the common law rules.

The ratio decidendi can be of two types-

Descriptive ratio: The descriptive ratio is the main reason which has guided or helped the
court in reaching the final decision. It is the original ratio and it lays the path for future cases.

Prescriptive Ratio: The prescriptive ratio lays down the interpretation of the
descriptive ratio. Two different cases will rarely have a similar set of facts. Due to this, a
problem regarding the future application of the precedent set arises. Here the descriptive ratio
is a little changed by the use of the level of generality.

Ratio decidendi is important in judicial precedents because they act as the legal guideline
underlying the choices in a specific case. It lays down the precedent for future cases. They are
considered the most important part of a judge’s discourse. The idea of precedent is based on
the Latin principle of stare decisis. The principle states that if something has been decided by
the court in the past, there is no need to change it. In simpler terms, what the principle says
that follow the common law and don’t attempt to change it.

How to determine Ratio Decidendi?

Professor Arthur Goodhart points out that the ratio decidendi is not the reason for the
decision because the reason may be bad and yet the case may come to be an authority. The

7|Page
ratio decidendi is also not necessarily the proposition of law stated in the judgment. There
may be no rule of law expressly set out or there may be several rules of law set out by
different judges as in appellate decisions. The rule may be broader than is necessary to cover
the facts of the case before the court. The view of Goodhart is that ratio decidendi is nothing
more than the decision based on the material facts of the case. There are certain rules by
which the material facts can be discovered. Certain facts may be presumed to be immaterial
unless expressly stated to be material. Such would be the facts regarding time, place, name,
amount, etc. If the judgment does not give the facts, the facts stated in the report must be
assumed to be material. If the judgment does state the facts, we must not look beyond that.
The difficulty is as to how much of these facts the judge has treated as material. The view of
Goodhart is that facts such as time, place, etc., are presumed to be immaterial unless
expressly stated to be material. If the judgment does not distinguish between the material and
immaterial facts, all facts mentioned in it must be considered to be material except facts
regarding time, place, etc. All facts which the judge has expressly or impliedly treated as
immaterial must be ignored. The ratio decidendi is the decision as applied to the material
facts as ascertained according to the rules suggested by him. If in a later case, the material
facts coincide with or are contained within the material facts of the earlier case, then the
earlier case is a precedent in the point.

Critics point out that the view of Prof. Goodhart that a ratio decidendi of a case consists of
the decision based on the material facts is superficially true. Its inadequacy becomes evident
when it is applied in detail. It rests entirely on the meaning of the phrase "material facts." The
theory of Goodhart implies that it is the deciding judge who decides what are the material
facts and those can be discovered by a perusal of the judgment. The theory overlooks two
points. The first point is that it is within the function of the judges in the subsequent cases to
say what they choose to regard as the material facts of the earlier case. The second point is
that two persons may agree to a collection of individual facts and yet form different
impressions of the group of them as a unit.

A case in law is a collection of facts. Whether two cases resemble each other sufficiently so
that one can be regarded as a precedent for the other rests entirely on the impression which a
particular judge forms of the facts of each case as a whole. According to M. R. Cohen: “You
cannot pass from past decisions to future ones without making assumptions. From the
statement that court has ruled so and so in certain cases nothing follows except insofar as the
new cases are assumed to be like the old cases. But this likeness depends on our logical

8|Page
analysis of classes of cases.” The result is that the ratio decidendi of a case depends a good
deal on what later tribunals have declared to be the ratio decidendi.

Illustration of Ratio Decidendi

Assuming that a couple leaves their dog in their car while going out to a shop. For some
unknown reason, the dog gets excited and starts jumping around. The dog paws the rear glass
window. It shatters and a fragment of glass flies off and, unfortunately, falls into the eye of a
passer-by, who later has to have his eye removed. Are the couple liable to pay compensation
for the man’s eye? The court said no. People should take care to guard against ‘realistic
possibilities. They should only be liable, the court said, if they caused others harm by doing
something that could be reasonably foreseen as likely to cause harm. We are not liable if we
fail to guard against ‘fantastic possibilities’ that happen to occur. The accident, in this case,
the judges ruled, was just such a ‘fantastic possibility’. The couple therefore did not have to
pay compensation. The reason for the decision in this case, the ratio decidendi, can therefore
be expressed simply as: “where harm was caused to a pedestrian by a dog smashing the
window of the car that it was in, and where this sort of incident was unforeseeable, the
defendants were not liable.”

OBITER DICTA

Obiter Dicta is usually seen as normal statements made by the court which are not part of the
ratio decidendi. The judge may go on to speculate about what his decision would or might
have been if the facts of the case had been different. This is obiter dictum, a Latin phrase that
means ‘a word said while travelling’ or ‘along the way’ or ‘by the way’. It is important to
note that the binding part of a decision is the ratio decidendi. 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.

According to Professor Patterson, an obiter dictum is a “statement of law in the opinion

which could not logically be a major premise of the selected facts of the decision.”8

Professor Goodhart stated that, “obiter dictum is the conclusion based on a fact the existence
of which has not been determined by the court.”

8
Chunilal Basu & Anr. v. The Hon’ble Chief Justice High of Calcutta, AIR 1974 Cal 326.

9|Page
According to Lord Sterndale, “Dicta are of different kinds and of varying degrees of weight.
Sometimes they may be called almost casual expressions of opinion upon a point which has
not been raised in the case, and is not really present to the judge’s mind. Such dicta, though
entitled to the respect due to the speaker, may fairly be disregarded by the judges before
whom the point has been raised and argued in a way to bring it under fuller consideration.
Some dicta, however, are of a different kind; they are, though not necessary for the decision
of the case, deliberate expressions of opinion given after consideration upon a point clearly
brought and argued before the court.”

Hence, one can say that any statement which is made during the course of a judgment that
does
not fall under any categories is obiter dicta.9

The Indian courts have given interpretations about the word obiter dictum. The first major
case is the case of Mohandas Issardas v. A.N. Sattanathan.10 The court talked about obiter
dictum as the opinion expressed by the judges in the court during the time, they pronounce
the judgment. But these statements must not have any importance in the judgment. Obiter
dicta are not important constituents for arriving at the decision but are only helpful in helping
the circumstances. A statement that is obiter dictum, is just incidental remarks and nothing
else.11

Obiter dictum was again discussed in Sarwan Singh Lamba v. Union of India.12 The Supreme
Court talked about the value and legal weightage of obiter dictum. The court said that in
normal circumstances, the obiter dictum of the court for any case is expected to be followed.
It was also held that the obiter dictum made by the Supreme Court has considerable
weightage. But it will depend on the kind of the type of dictum.

In Madhav Rao Jivaji Scindia vs. Union of India13 the court held in the case that it is difficult
to consider a word, clause, or expression as a full exposition of law. This is so because the
word, clause, or expression does not answer the direct questions of the law of the case in the
hand.

Illustration of Obiter Dictum

9
The Hon Justice Michael Kirby, ‘Precedent – Report on Australia’ (Speech delivered at the International
Academy of Comparative Law Conference, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 17 July 2006)
10
AIR 1955 Bom 113.
11
Dr B.N. Mani Tripathi, JURISPRUDENCE: LEGAL THEORY, (Allahabad Law Agency, 2020).
12
1995 SCC (4) 546.
13
AIR 1971 SC 530.

10 | P a g e
For example, in the case above about the dog and the man injured by the fragment of glass,
assuming one of the judges says that, ‘if you knew your dog had an excitable tendency or
went mad in cars then you would be liable if it caused someone harm in a predictable way
and would have to pay compensation.’ The judge will not need to rule on that in the dog and
car window case, because the couple did not have a dog with a known excitable
temperament. His observations are, therefore, made ‘by the way’ and thus can be referred to
as an obiter dictum. Thus, in a future case involving a dog known by its owner to be
excitable, a lawyer for an injured claimant could refer back to the judge’s obiter dictum in the
car window case and use it as ‘persuasive’ but not ‘binding’ authority. It must be noted that
the division of cases into these two distinct parts is an analytical tool. Judges do not actually
separate their judgments into the two clearly defined categories and it is then up to a later
judge to determine/elicit what the ratio is. This is a bit like listening to, or reading, a speech
made by a politician or a sports team manager and trying to identify the most important part
of the speech. In some cases, this is not an easy matter, and it may be made even more
difficult in cases where there are three or five judges and where each of the judges delivers
their own lengthy judgment so there is no clear single ratio. There may even be disagreement
over what the ratio is and there may be more than one ratio.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RATIO DECIDENDI AND OBITER DICTA

The basic difference between the two parts of a judgment is the basis of their importance or
legal value. Ratio decidendi lays down laws for the future which are of high importance.
Meanwhile, obiter dictum does not carry that much legal authority. The Supreme Court has
been contradicting itself in terms of its judgment on the same topic. The ratio decidendi has a
binding effect meanwhile the obiter dictum is of persuasive effect.

Ratio decidendi are the reasons behind the decision given by the court. But the obiter dictum
is the normal statement that may help one in understanding the circumstances which led to
the decision of the court.

Another difference between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta is the information under
scrutiny. For instance, ratio decidendi refers to the facts of the case, those things that nobody
can discuss. Obiter dicta are everything in the middle. Obiter dicta translate to “by the way,”
and refer to information that a person says, “in passing.” In other words, the difference
between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta lies in the way that, while ratio decidendi is binding

11 | P a g e
in its facts, obiter dicta refer to persuasive statements as it were. For instance, obiter dicta
may include the statements a lawyer tells the jury in a criminal case to convince them of his
client’s innocence, in addition to the facts of the case.

The ratio decidendi has a restricting position and is restricting on subordinate courts. An
obiter dictum has no such power. The rule of law dependent on material realities is ratio
decidendi. The rule of law dependent on basic theoretical realities is obiter dicta. Ratio
decidendi is a rule of law explicitly or impliedly treated by the appointed authority as a vital
advance in arriving at the resolution. An obiter declaration is a rule of law that holds on a
judge which was neither explicitly nor impliedly treated by him as an essential advance in
arriving at his decision.

12 | P a g e
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RATIO DECIDENDI AND OBITER DICTA CAN BE FURTHER
UNDERSTOOD WITH THE HELP OF THE FOLLOWING TABLE:

PARTICULARS RATIO DECIDENDI OBITER DICTA

Definition A judge’s judgement in a Obiter Dicta are legal ideas

matter is based on the ratio or observations expressed by
decidendi. The ratio of the the judges that have no
judge’s decision on a legal bearing on the result of the
issue, not simply a recitation case.
of the law.

Role Ratio Decidendi is a norm of Obiter Dicta is a rule of law

law that the judge openly or stance taken by a judge that
implicitly treats as an was not explicitly or
essential step in reaching the implicitly considered as a
decision. required step in obtaining
his judgement.

Main Elements The judge is interpreting the The judge’s ruling, in this
law to the facts of the case, case, is not dependent on the
not just declaring it. legal explanation of the
rationale provided.

Significance The explanation provided is The above legal statement or

required to decide the case’s argument is hypothetical and
outcome. is just used to illustrate or
clarify anything.

Authority The ratio decidendi is An obiter dictum carries no

binding upon the lower such weight. It is a phrase
courts and has binding used by the courts that has
authority. not weight.

13 | P a g e
JUDGEMENTS

 Anil Kumar Neotia v. Union of India:

It is impermissible for the High Court to overrule the decision of the Apex Court on the
ground that the Supreme Court laid down the legal position without considering any other
point. It is not only a matter of discipline for the High Courts in India; it is the mandate of the
Constitution as provided under Article 141 that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall
be binding on all courts within the territory of India. It was pointed out by the Court in this
case that the High Court cannot question the correctness of the decision of the Supreme Court
even though the point sought before the High Court was not considered by the Supreme
Court.14

 State of Haryana v. Ranbir:

Court has discussed the concept of the Obiter dictum thus:

“A decision, it is well settled, is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be
deduced there from. Obiter dicta are more or less presumably unnecessary to the decision. It
may be an expression of a viewpoint or sentiments which has no binding effect. It is also well
settled that the statements which are not part of the ratio decidendi constitute Obiter Dicta
and are not authoritative.”15

 Ramkumar Mills Ltd. vs. Textile Commissioner:

It was contended that the decision of the Supreme Court was binding on all, whether parties
or not, a new contention challenging notification upheld by the Supreme Court, cannot be
gone into by the High Court, as it is well settled by a series of decisions of the supreme court
that the decision rendered by the supreme court is binding on all concerned under Article141
of the Constitution, whether they were the parties before the Supreme Court or not, and so in
view of the settled legal position, therefore, it cannot be held that the new contention
challenging the very same notification which is upheld by the Apex Court, can be gone into
by the High Court. The learned single judge, before whom these submissions were made,

14
AIR 1988 SC 1353.
15
(2006) 5 SCC 167.

14 | P a g e
rightly took the view that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court. This argument may
not survive for consideration.16

However, a division-bench decision of the court in Ferro concrete Co. v. State of Karnataka17
was pressed into service, under which the division bench had taken the view that there was a
difference between a point and an argument and if a new point is raised, which is not
considered by the Supreme Court, such challenge would be permissible by way of a separate
writ petition.

CONCLUSION

For the understanding of the law, one may not find the answer to a legal query in books only.
To understand the application of the text and to solve the query, one must read legal
precedents. Every judgment is made up of two major parts. Obiter Dicta and Ratio
Decidendi. Ratio Decidendi is the reasoning behind the judgment. It tells everyone the reason
why a particular conclusion was reached by the court. What are the things that guided the
Court in pronouncing the judgment in the manner it was pronounced? Obiter Dictum, on the
other hand, is the statement that a court makes while pronouncing the judgment. These
statements don’t hold any legal sanction nor do they lay down any new law. But these
statements may be helpful in understanding the condition of the case. They act as a
supporting ladder in understanding the ratio decidendi. The ratio decidendi lays down the
case law for the future meanwhile obiter dicta just provide help in understanding the
judgment.

16
ILR 1994 KAR 1125.
17
1987 64 STC 352 Kar.

15 | P a g e