Ratio decidendi and Obiter dicta
Ratio decidendi
Ratio decidendi is a Latin term that means “the reason for the decision.” It refers to the legal principle or rule that is the basis for a court’s decision in a case.
This principle is what future courts will follow when deciding similar cases. These are binding on future cases.
Ratio Decidendi Example
The ratio decidendi of the Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala 1973 SC case is the establishment of the basic structure doctrine. The Supreme Court held that while the Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it does not have the power to alter or destroy the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.
This principle is binding and has been followed in numerous subsequent cases. For example in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 SC Context: This case challenged the election of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Application: The Supreme Court applied the basic structure doctrine to strike down the 39th Amendment, which sought to place the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review. The court held that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Obiter dicta
Obiter dicta is a Latin term that means “things said by the way.” In simple terms, it refers to comments or observations made by a judge in a court’s decision that are not essential to the outcome of the case. These remarks are not binding in future cases but can be persuasive.
Obiter Dicta Example
In Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala 1973 SC judges observed that while the Constitution must be flexible to adapt to changing times, this flexibility should not extend to altering its basic structure. They emphasized the need for a balance between allowing amendments and preserving the core principles of the Constitution. Besides this court also discussed about the concept of secularism, and discussed about preamble, fundamental rights in this case. Judges also commented on the role of the judiciary in safeguarding the Constitution. These discussions and observations of the court was not essential for the outcome of the case, hence it was an obiter dicta.