Doctrine of Ratio Decidendi – Meaning,

Case Laws & Analysis

Table of Contents
1) Introduction:
2) A Brief about Precedent:
2.1) Definitions of precedent:
2.2) Types of Precedent:
2.3) Constitutional provision about the binding nature of precedent:
3) Brief about Ratio Decidendi:
4) Determination of Ratio Decidendi:
5) Rules of Ratio Decidendi:
6) Case laws:
7) Analysis and Conclusion:

Introduction:
The need for the law emerges whenever the conflict arises in a
society; the so-called “conflict” is the ramification of the difference
of opinion in the shared ideas. Thus disputes and confrontation of
ideas in society have led to the promulgation of the law in order to
obviate unnecessary chaos in a community. The vast array of
definitions and interpretations of law are available, but the catchall
connotation is that law prescribes the rightful conduct and
comportment of a person in a society. The sources of such a legal
framework include customs, legislation, and precedents. The
customs and beliefs as being the bedrock of primitive society have
contributed to the outgrowth of legal practice in the name of
customary law. The same is the Opino Juris accepted by a
community of people and have been prevailing for a prolonged
period in a locale. While legislation is the set of laws promulgated by
the legislature and executed by the executive in accordance with
which the judicial system performs.
A latter source is the precedents: the judicial system allows the
judges to interpret and perform productive works to permeate the
lacuna in existing legislation, which they think incompetent to the
status quo. Such decisions made by the judge as per their own
sense of rights and wrongs will guide future cases with similar facts.
Thus, the precedents are the guide that can be followed for future
similar cases. The binding authority of precedents never goes
incapable unless and until it ultra vires any of the existing statutes.
Universally, every precedent consists of Ratio Decidendi and Obiter
dicta among which the former is considered to be the rule of the
court, and the same alone is binding.

A Brief about Precedent:

To define the doctrine of Ratio Decidendi, it is a prerequisite to
understanding the doctrine of precedent. In common parlance, the
judicial precedent is the principle expressed in the preceding case.
Sir John Salmond opined the same as ‘A precedent is said to be a
judicial decision which contains its principles. The stated principle
which thus forms its authoritative element is called the ratio
decidendi. The concrete decision is thus binding between the
parties, but it is the abstract ratio decidendi which alone has the
force of law as regards the world at large.’ Thus, the term ratio
refers to the rule or set of rules used by the court to settle the
arisen dispute. It is the ‘law declared’ in the judgment, which forms
the precedent.

As already mentioned, the precedent comes into force as qua

authoritative rule when the analogous case with similar facts arises
in lower courts or a lesser bench tribunal.

Further, the precedent is the statement pronounced by a judge or

bench while rendering the judgment. The precedent is known to be
a source of law, qua while rendering the decision of ongoing
dispute; the court elucidates and expounds the related law.
Definitions of precedent:

Jeremy Bentham considered precedents as ‘judge-made laws’.

Withal, john Austin defines the same as ‘judiciary’s law’.
Withal, ‘the precedent covers everything said or done, which
furnishes a rule for subsequent practice’, according to Gray.

Types of Precedent:

1. Persuasive precedent: the precedent majorly relies upon the

fact of the case at hand. It is non-binding in nature and not required
to be followed but convinces the judge to decide accordingly. It is
not a direct source of law, per contra capable of contributing to the
historical precedent.

For example, one high court precedents are persuasive to other

high courts, and foreign judgments are generally persuasive and
Section 13 of CPC lays rules to be satisfied for its enforcement.

2. Binding precedent: the mandatory precedent to be followed.

Such precedents have appertained on the principle of stare decisis.
The Latin term this connotes ‘to stand by that, which is decided’.
The court hierarchy plays a prominent role in its functioning. For
example, the decision of the apex court is binding to the high
courts. Meanwhile, lower courts under high court jurisdiction are
bound to their higher court decisions.

Generally, a bench with two judges constitutes a division bench,

whereas, three or more judges contribute to a full bench that
depends on the nature of the appeal. As per the general principle,
the smaller bench is bound by the decision of the larger bench.

Constitutional provision about the binding nature of precedent:

Article 141 of the Indian constitution prescribes that all courts are
binding to the law declared by the Apex court. Since the precedents
are mean to offer clarity over the existing law of the land by
elucidating its vagueness, the constitution has propounded the
binding nature of the precedent in India.

Brief about Ratio Decidendi:

In legal parlance, the ratio Decidendi means ‘reason for the
decision’. It is the requisite rationale to reach the decision, which
may not only rely on the law attached to the case at hand but all
other status quo notions and principles. Comprehensively, the ratio
will not include the,

 Case facts
 Application of legislations to settle the dispute, and
 Order or judgment.
The authority of decision qua precedent lies on its ratio Decidendi.
Thus, the confrontation of the legislation alone should take into
account regardless of the dispute in facts. In general, a judicial
decision is a composition of three parts, namely, Ratio
Decidendi, Res Judicata, and Obiter Dicta.

Ratio Decidendi: it is not the actual decision, but the necessary

measures need to reach the judgment. Since it is the ratio of
decision, the same is binding on other courts.

Res Judicata: it is the actual decision of the court. Since it is

binding on the parties to the case, they cannot re-litigate the same
issue already determined by the court.

Obiter Dicta: it is the opinion or suggestion, which is not germane

to the current case has expressed by the judge while deciding the
same. Generally, it is not authoritative and not binding.

As far as the judicial precedent is concerned, the reason for the

decision is requisite and not the eventual decision held by the court.
Since every single case has distinct facts, it is unfair to bind on the
prior case judgment. But, the observations and reasons propounded
on such a case can be followed.

Finding the ratio of a legal decision is not an easy task to be

performed, as the margin between the Ratio Decidendi and other
interpretations of law like Dictum is sightly obscure. The additional
commotion with the very notion of Ratio Decidendi is that what if a
precedent has a lot of observations and ratio. This not a Res
Integra question since if there are multiple reasons, then all the
rations are binding.

Descriptive Ratio Decidendi: it is the reason for the decision from

the original case.

Prescriptive Ratio Decidendi: it describes how the descriptive

ratio applies for a future case as a precedent.

Determination of Ratio Decidendi:

The Ratio Decidendi in a judgment can be ascertained via the
followings steps,

 The material facts should be emphasized with obviating

the inessential facts.
 The Facts of the case, as well as the propounded
reasoning, should be analyzed to ascertain the ratio with
reference to major and minor premises.
 Figuring out the precedents cited in the respective case.
 Assessing the opinions expressed by the majority of
judges.
 The essence of the decision should be examined.
Rules of Ratio Decidendi:
 The ratios should be conclusive and not just a mere
attempt of scrutinizing the fact.
  The core element of the dispute should be analyzed and
resolved through such reasons.
 The reasons should be relevant to the arisen issue.
 The rations should come out of a dispute in law not from
the dispute in facts.
 As already mentioned, all the reasons expressed in a
precedent are binding.
 In a case, when the judges agree to the decision but
have different reasons for the same. Then, the core area
of acceptance shall be focused on.
 The ratio Decidendi can never develop out of the
aggregation of the different components of separate
reasons.
Case laws:
The definition of Ratio Decidendi was explicated in the case of Sir
George Jessel in Osborne v. Rowlett[1] 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”.

In the Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh[2] case, the

primary issue was about the right to higher education. But the court
held that the right to primary education was a fundamental
right under the Indian constitution. Thus, the declared verdict is
upon the dictum observation.

The dictum and ratio were distinguished in the case of Director of

Settlements, A.P. & Ors. V. M.R. Apparao & Anr[3] as dictum is
the observation of court on the arisen legal question which may not
aid in attaining the decision of the case at hand. The same has been
stated in the case of State of Haryana v. Ranbir.[4]

The significant role played by the level of generality or process of

abstraction in finding the Ratio Decidendi in a case has been
expressed by the apex court in S.I. Rooplal and another v. Lt.
Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi, and others[5] case.
In the case of B. Shama Rao v. UT of Pondicherry[6], wherein it
has commented that the order of the court is not binding, but the
rationale is binding qua precedent. Only the ratio Decidendi is
bending and considered as a precedent, expressed in the case of
Union of India v. Manikal Banerjee[7].

The case of State of Orissa v. Sudhanshu Shekhar

Mishra[8], in which the combination of a judgment has been
stated as follows,

A judgment contains,

 The observation on material facts, and

 The explanation of the principle of law applicable to the
arisen dispute.
It was held in the case of Minerva Mills v. Union of
India[9] that, despite the difference in some judges’ reasoning.
The case continues to have the value of precedent unless and until
the ratio of the case has the majority.

If a decision proposed by the bench with three judges has found to

be incorrect by a two-judge bench, the latter cannot be followed as
the precedent. The issue can be legally addressed only by another
three-judge bench, Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra
Patnaik.[10]

Analysis and Conclusion:

The law is something that can be interpreted in many ways like,
Savigny, considered a peculiar system of law was a reflection of the
“spirit of the people”. He called it volksgiest. On the other hand,
John Austin considered it as command of the sovereign. The Other
perception of law is that it is the rightness (Ethics) of will and never
be enforced by the external legislations. As a contradiction, others
say that law is the science of the totality of rules for which external
legislation is possible (Nomology). By reading these many various
definitions of law one should not conclude that law is vague and
undefined since it is perceptual in nature. As, these notions of law,
which have been approved by the majority of the society, will form
a principle. Those set of principles would compile the jurisprudence.
This Jurisprudence refers to both philosophies of law or legal theory
and case laws.

Thus, case-law alias precedents are the cornerstone on which the

modern common law has been framed. Since it connotes that how
the law has been the instrument of social change or vice versa, it
kept updating itself in accordance with the status quo. As
mentioned, judgments are the source of law, and the judges have
been empowered with judicial law-making authority. When it comes
to the doctrine of Ratio Decidendi, the rationale of decision forms
precedent, such observations for reasons takes place in the light of
the common law principle of contemporanea exposito, which
connotes that the interpreter of law should put themselves at the
time of enactment. Indeed, by doing so, a clear vision over the
existing legislation can endeavor.

References:

 https://blog.ipleaders.in/law-precedent-reference-ratio-
decidendi-obiter-dicta/#:~:text=Ratio%20decidendi
%20literally%20means%20’reason,a%20decision%20in
%20a%20case.&text=In%20case%20there%20are
%20multiple,binding%20in%20the%20subsequent
%20cases.
 https://www.legalbites.in/ratio-decidendi/#:~:text=Ratio
%20decidendi%20is%20as%20’the,contains%20in%20its
%20a%20principle.&text=It%20is%20the%20general
%20ground,Ratio%20Decidendi%20Krishna%20Kumar
%20v.
 https://www.duncker-humblot.de/_files_media/
leseproben/9783428522163.pdf
 http://www.grkarelawlibrary.yolasite.com/resources/FM-
Jul14-LT-2-Saeesh.pdf
[1] (1880) 13 Ch D 774.
[2] [1993] 1 SCC 645.

[3] (2002)4 SCC 638.

[4] (2006) 5 SCC 167

[5] A.I.R. 2000 SC 594.

[6] 1967 AIR 1480, 1967 SCR (2) 650.

[7] AIR 2006 SC 2844.

[8] AIR 1968 SC 647.

[9] AIR 1980 SC 1789.

[10] AIR 2002 SC 296 ;(2002) 1 SCC 1.