RATIO DECIDENDI

Doctrine of stare decisis

• The decision of a higher court within the same provincial jurisdiction acts as binding
authority on a lower court within that same jurisdiction. The principle of stare decisis can
be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior
court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court
cannot change.
• The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless
there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and
inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one
which courts can and do ignore occasionally.
• In order for the doctrine of stare decisis to be applicable, there are two basic
prerequisites, first that there must be authentic reporting of decisions of courts. The
second requirement is an established hierarchy of courts.
What it is
• Reason of the decision.
• principle or principles deduced from authority in which court reached
is decision or negatively, the principle without which the court would
not have reached the decision that it did reach.
• Based on material fact of the case and the decision thereon.
• Involves a process of abstraction from totality of facts that occurred in
it.
• The reason for the decision ratio decidendi forms the groundwork of
an authoritative precedent.
How to determine ratio?
• Thus ratio decidendi is whatever facts the judge has determined to be
the material facts of the case, plus the judge’s decision based on
those facts of the material facts that the judge creates law.
• Goodhart test of ratio is: ratio decidendi = material facts + decision.
Goodhart states that "It is by his choice of material facts that the
judge creates law."
Continued…
• Finding a ratio decidendi depends on a process of abstraction from
the totality of facts that occurred in it.
• The process is carried to progressively higher flights.
• The higher (broader/more general) the abstraction the wider the ratio
• From telling a lie that is likely to cause fright which is a lower
abstraction to doing anything with an intent to affect the plaintiff’s
mind or body which is higher as in this case the judge did not confine
his judgment to lies but spoke only of wilfully doing an act which is
calculated to and does cause harm. This would include acts like lying
or anything else too. (Wilkinson v Downton)
Advantages and disadvantages
• stresses the point that a proposition of law is authoritative only to the
extent it is relevant to the facts in issue in the case.
• we cannot always rely on the judge’s reasoning in a case. This is likely to
happen where the judge supports his decision with arguments of policy and
justice.
• The only drawback of the test is that the test is not in actual use by the
judges because it is difficult to always rely on material facts of the case in
order to elicit a ratio
• Depends entirely on the level of generality at which one chooses to describe
the facts. Also judges may differ in their opinion of what are material facts.
Precedents
• The ratio decidendi forms the binding precedent of a case
• All other legal statements, statements etc. are the obiter dicta
• Ratio is found in the majority opinion
• Dissenting opinions of higher courts especially SC are not binding but
have high persuasive value
• Under Article 141, SC can bind all lower courts by its orders but not
itself as clarified in Bengal Immunity case
CAN JUDGES DEVIATE FROM USING
PRECDENTS?
• There can be ways through which precedents may be overruled or judges may chose to deviate
from using the precedent.
• In extraordinary circumstances a higher court may overturn or overrule mandatory precedent,
but will often attempt to applying the precedent before overturning it, thereby limiting the
scope of the precedent.
• The first is called per incuriam. Here due to a significant oversight, an important statute was
overlooked and this affected the decision significantly. In other words per incuriam means that
a court failed to take into account all the relevant and vital statutes or case authorities and that
this had a major effect on the decision. Held in: Young v. Bristol Aeroplane
• The second is called Sub silentio- Precedents that pass sub silentio are of little or no authority.
This is an another exception to the binding precedent. A judgment said to be sub silentio when
a proposition was not the subject matter of argument. Hence the ruling does not hold on such
matter. Decision on a question which has not been argued cannot be treated as precedent.
Held in: M/s. Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another.
example
• The Court may consciously decide in favour of one party because of
point A, which it considers and pronounces upon. It may be shown,
however, that logically that the Court should not have decided in
favour of the particular party unless its also decided point B in his
favour; but point B was not argued or considered by the Court. In
such circumstances, although point B was logically involved in the
facts and although the case had a specific outcome, the decision is
not an authority on point B. Point B is said to pass sub-silentio.
Continued…
• Another relief available to a judge who wishes to avoid following a
previous decision which they would otherwise be bound to follow is
called distinguishing. When a judge finds the material facts (or
questions of law) of the present case to be sufficiently different from
the earlier case he may distinguish the two cases and refuse to follow
the earlier decision. Held in: UOI v. K.S. Subramanian. An advantage of
distinguishing is that it helps to keep judicial precedent and the law
flexible.