What is meant by Ratio decidendi and obiter dicta
Define precedent. What is meant by Ratio decidendi and obiter dicta?
1) Introduction
Precedent is a Judicial decision which has been given either by the Supreme or subordinate Court. Precedent is an important source of law. Judicial decisions contain a principle of law in itself and that principle is termed as Ratio Decideni. As well as other things required by the court or required particulars related to the case are termed as obiter dictum Precedents help judges or courts to resolve subsequent similar cases
2) Definition of precedent
In a legal system, precedent is a judicial decision which establishes a legal rule for subsequent similar cases
3) Literal and legal meaning of Ratio Decidendi
Literally Ratio decidendi is a Latin phrase which means “the reason for deciding". Legally Ratio decidendi is a reason on behalf of, the judge to decide the case. It describes the legal principle of the case
According to Pro Repert cross
“A ratio decidendi is a rule of law expressly treated by the judges as a necessary step in reaching his conclusion”
According to Salmond
“A precedent is a judicial decision which contains in itself a principle which has its authoritative element is termed as ratio decidendi”
1. Effect of Ratio decidendi
Basically, under the doctrine of Ratio Decidendi, the decision of a higher court binds the lower court within the same similar cases. Ratio decidendi has the force of law and binds the parties to it. It legally binds the courts to make their judicial decision keeping in view all factors which have the same as other cases
2. Must be relevant to the case
The process of determining the ratio decidendi is an analysis of what the court decided. Based on the legal points about which the parties in the case fought. As well as all other statements of the courts should be relevant to the case under hearing
According to Salmond stated
“The only judicial principles which are authoritative and those are relevant to their subject matter and limited in their scope”
A. Rules determining ratio decidendi
In Section 29 of Salmond on jurisprudence, rules determining the ratio decidendi have been indicated. Details are as under:
1. Case decides generally
What the case decides generally and it decides a general principle which becomes a rule for the whole world because it has a valid authority
2. As between the parties
What the case decides between the parties, the law decides that once the case has been heard and appeals have been taken, all parties and their successors are bound
by it that they never will fight in future with one another
3. As against persons not parties to suit
What the case decides as against persons, not parties to suit, it decides a general
rule of law which has authority against the person's dispute
B. Methods of determining ratio decidendi
The different jurists have presented methods of determining ratio decidendi, which
are as under:
1. Reversal test
The reversal test of Professor Wambaugh suggested that ratio decidendi can be discovered by reversing the preposition of law put forward by the court and inquiring whether the decision would be the same after reversing the facts. If it is the same proposition of law is not part of the ratio. The ratio is a general rule without which the case would have been decided otherwise.
Criticism
Lord Simonds has pointed out defects in the suggestion. In case if judge has given two alternative grounds for a decision. The test of Wambaugh would compel us to deny the importance of ratio decidendi
2. Good hart’s theory
According to Prof Good Hart, ratio decidendi is not the reason for the decision Ratio decidendi is a conclusion reached by the judges based on material facts. According to Good's theory, here is the judge who decides what are the material facts which can be discovered by a study of the judgement
Criticism
It has two points.
1) It is the judge’s discretion what they choose to regard as the material facts
of the earlier cases
2) Two may agree as to the collection of individual facts different from their group as a unit
3) Literal and legal meaning of Obiter dictum
The word obiter dicta is a Latin word which means “things said by the way.” Legally all that is said by the court in ways which are irrelevant or unnecessary for a particular case is called obiter dictum
According to Good hart
“A conclusion based on a fact the existence of which has not been determined by the court”
1. Force of persuasive
The obiter dicta has a persuasive force in itself. In the course of his judgment, the judge may select various observations relevant to the issue before him. They can take advantage of such observations but they are not bound to follow them
2. Advantages of obiter dictum
Following are the advantages of obiter dictum
- Orbiter helps in the growth of law
- sSometimes it helps in the reformation of the law
- The judges are expected to know the law and their observations are bound to carry weight with the government
- The defect in the legal system can be pointed out by the obiter dictum
- They provide the solutions to problems which have not been decided by the courts up till now
5) Kinds of dicta
Following are the kinds of Dicta with varying degrees of weight
1. Causal expression of opinion
Sometimes obiter dictum raises casual expression of opinion which already has not been presented by anyone in the case and has not come in the mind of judges. Such dicta may be respected by judges in a way to brings it under consideration
2. Deliberate (intentional) expression of opinion
Giving full consideration upon a point before the court is deliberation expression of opinion, It depends on judges to give decisions conflicting to such dicta but much attach great weight to the dicta
6) Conclusion
Inferior courts are bound to apply the legal principles set down by superior courts in earlier cases. The decisions given by the judge contain ratio decidendi and obiter dictum. Ratio decidendi is the reasoning for the decision. And obiter dictum which is nothing but observations of the judges upon a particular point which is not strictly relevant to the point in issue but which is for the growth of law