Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dicta

Ratio Decidendi:

Generally, a judgment in a case has two distinct aspects, as:

1. A concrete decision binding on the parties to the litigation and therefore, having practical consequences, and
2. A judicial principle which is the basis of the concrete and practical decision.

The general principle applied in a particular decision is known as the ratio decidendi of the case. Such principle is not applicable only to that case, but to other cases also which are similar to the decided case in their essential feature.

The literal meaning of the term ratio decidendi is ‘reason of decision’ i.e. the rule of law which is preferred by the judges as the actual basis of his decision, or the rule of law which permits others to interpret the judgment as being of binding authority. According to Professor Keeton, ratio decidendi of a decision is the principle of law formulated by the judge for the purpose of deciding the problems before him. Rupert Cross says ratio decidendi is a rule of law expressly or impliedly treated by the judge as a necessary step in reaching his conclusion. According to Goodhart, ratio decidendi is to be found by taking into consideration all the facts treated as by the judge who decided the case. Salmond says that a precedent is a judicial decision which contains in itself a principle. The underlying principle which thus forms its authoritative element is often termed the ratio decidendi. The principle of the case must be rationally laid down, it should not be broader than necessary.

Principles to find Ratio Decidendi:

The whole judgment of a case is not binding only a part of the judgment is binding and that part is the ratio decidendi. To ascertain the ratio of a case, certain methods are as follows:

1. Classical or abstraction method: The higher the abstraction, the wider the ratio decidendi. The ratio depends upon a process of abstraction from the totality of facts that occurred in it.
2. Reversal test: Professor Wambaugh says that we should take the proposition of law put forward by the judge, reverse or negate it and see if its reversal would alter the actual decision also. If yes, the proposition is the ratio part of it, otherwise not. This rule does not help when a court gives several reasons for its decision.
3. Material facts theory: Prof. Goodhart opines that ratio decidendi is nothing more than the decision based on the material facts of the case. If in a subsequent case material facts coincide with or are identical with those of the earlier one, then the earlier case is precedent in point.
4. Simpson says that the ratio or precedent is not set and known just by one decision or case but by a series of them. Thus, for knowing the precedent we cannot rely only on one judgment but will have to go through a series of them to clearly understand the direction of law have to go through a series of them to clearly understand the direction of law towards which it is moving.

Obiter Dicta:

The term obiter dicta mean ‘statement by the way’. According to Keeton, obiter dictum are observations made by the judge but which are essential for the decision reached. In Jaiwant Rao and others v. State of Rajasthan,[i] the Court observed dicta which do not form the integral part of the chain of reasoning to the question decided may be regarded as ‘obiter’.  According to Talbot, J., an obiter dictum is an opinion on some point which is not necessary for the decision of the case. The emphasis is not only on the opinion but also on the point. It is not merely an expression of opinion unconnected with the cases for determination.

Obiter dicta merely possess persuasive efficacy because they are the dicta said just by the way, and they do not have any binding authority.

In Municipal committee, Amritsar v. Hazara Singh[ii] it was observed that ‘Even obiter dictum of the Supreme Court should be accepted as a binding force. But statements on matters other than law have no binding force. Supreme Court’s decisions which are essentially on the question of fact cannot be relied upon as precedents for the decision of other cases.

Distinction between Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dicta:

Ratio decidendi means reason of the decision while obiter dicta mean something said by the judge, by the way, having no binding authority. The difference between the two can be understood better by the case R v. Franklin[iii]. As In this case, in the month of July the deceased was bathing in the sea at Brighton sea-beach. The accused stole a big box from a hotel at the sea-beach and threw that into the sea which struck him and caused his death. The accused Franklin was produced on the charge of manslaughter before the court of Justice Field. The court gave him a sentence of two months imprisonment. According to Justice Field, the ratio decidendi of this case was-

• That, if a person while committing a wrong or as a consequence of the wrong causes death of a person, he cannot be held guilty for manslaughter because of the reason that a death has been caused due to his act.
• A person who causes the death of another person due to his gross negligence shall be guilty of manslaughter.

In this case, Justice Field expressed a view by way of obiter dicta that even if the prosecution succeeds in proving that the alleged tort was committed by the accused, he shall not be guilty of manslaughter until the jury finds him guilty for this offense.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

[i] AIR 1961 Raj 250

[ii] AIR 1975 SC 1087

[iii] (1883) 15 Cox 163

Books referred:

1. Aggarwal, Nomita, Jurisprudence (Legal Theory), Central Law Publications, Allahabad, 2012.
2. Mahajan, V.D., Jurisprudence and Legal Theory, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 2016.
3. Tripathi, B.N. Mani, Jurisprudence(Legal Theory), Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 2015.
4. Singh, Dr Avtar and Kaur, Dr Harpreet, Introduction to Jurisprudence, Lexis Nexis, Gurgaon, 2013.