Ratio Desidendi vs. Orbiter Dicta

Introduction:

In the Indian legal system, a precedent is a judicial decision that establishes a principle or rule of law. The doctrine of judicial precedent, also known as stare decisis, is followed by Indian courts, that means “to stand by things decided.” It is a legal doctrine that requires courts to follow or adhere to the precedent or decisions of higher courts, including their own previous decisions, on similar issues of law. The doctrine of stare decisis is a fundamental principle of common law legal systems. The binding effect of a precedent depends on the hierarchy of courts. Having said that, the Supreme Court recently clarified that “not everything that is said in the court becomes a precedent”. You can access the case by clicking on the link (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-obiter-dicta-ratio-decidendi-distinction-career-institute-educational-society-vs-om-shree-thakurji-educational-society-227739)

Before we delve into what can be called as a precedent, we must understand the following two terms:

Ratio Desidendi:

When a court decides a case, it not only decides the particular matter before it but also establishes a legal principle or rule that should be followed in future cases. The legal principle or rule established by a court is known as the ratio decidendi, and it forms the basis of the court’s decision. The ratio decidendi is binding on lower courts and must be followed in future cases with similar facts.

Orbiter Dicta:

Obiter dicta refers to the statements or observations made by judges in a court judgment that are not directly necessary for the decision reached in the case. These statements are considered incidental or collateral to the main issue being decided. They are only persuasive and can be used by lawyers and judges as guidance in future cases.

How to Ascertain if a Statement is a Ratio Desidendi in a Judgement?

To determine if a statement is a ratio decidendi, you do an “inversion test”, which involves considering whether the decision would be the same if the statement was removed. Here’s how you can apply the inversion test:

1. Identify the statement: Identify the specific statement or proposition you are examining within the court’s judgment. This could be a legal principle, rule, or conclusion.
2. Remove the statement: Mentally or practically remove the statement from the court’s reasoning and decision. Imagine the decision without the statement and consider how it would affect the outcome.
3. Assess the impact: Evaluate the impact of removing the statement on the court’s decision. Ask yourself if the court’s decision would remain the same or if it would lead to a different outcome. If the decision would change, it suggests that the statement is part of the ratio decidendi.
4. Consider alternative reasoning: If removing the statement would alter the decision, think about alternative legal principles or rules that could have supported the same decision. Assess whether there are other key reasons or legal grounds that the court could have relied upon to reach the same outcome.

By applying the inversion test, you can assess the significance of a statement within a court’s decision and determine if it forms part of the ratio decidendi. It helps in understanding whether the statement is a binding legal principle that future courts should follow or if it holds a more persuasive, but non-binding, status as obiter dicta.

Ritika Reddy, Senior Associate