Judicial Precedent and Res Judicata – a Couplet

Taken from: Relevancy of a Civil Case Judgment in Criminal Cases: Does a Civil Court Judgment Bind a Criminal Court?
Also Read:  Ratio Decidendi (alone) Forms a Precedent; Not the Final Order or Conclusion.

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam

Preface

No Binding Precedent if relevant statutory provision was Not considered; It Must be ‘Ratio Decidendi’ also.

Ratio Decidendi Is Binding Precedent: Mere Casual Expressions – Not of Much Avail.

  • Binding Judicial Precedent refers to a judicial rule or principle established in an earlier binding decision that must be followed in subsequent similar cases. Ratio Decidendi is the binding precedent; Not  findings on facts or issues
  • Res Judicata applies to findings of both law and fact. It bars the same parties from re-litigating issues that have already been heard and finally decided. If only a finding is “Necessary”, then only it is “Directly and Substantially” in issue

Binding precedent pertains strictly to legal principles and technically binds courts, not parties. In any event, there will be no ‘binding precedent’ if the earlier decision was –

  • without taking into account the statutory provision or factual situation
  • wrong in law.

Ratio Decidendi is the binding precedent; Not  Findings on Facts or Issues

In Jagdish Prasad v. State of MP, 2004(4) MPLJ 537, it was held by the Supreme Court as under:

  • “Any observation made or relief given by a Court, out of sympathy, compassion, sentiments and not based on any discernible principle of law or de hors the merits of the case, cannot be a binding precedent. A judgment of a Court contains three parts :
  • (i) finding of facts;
  • (ii) statement of principle of law applicable to the legal problem raised on the facts, based on which the case is decided; and
  • (iii) decision which is based on the finding of fact, applicable principles of law, and in some cases, discretion and the need to mould the relief in a particular manner.
  • Out of the three parts, it is only the second part, that is ratio decidendi or statement of law applied and acted upon by the Court, that is a binding precedent. Neither the findings on facts nor the ultimate decision, that is, the relief given or the manner adopted to dispose of the case, is a precedent.” (Quoted in: Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chhindwara v. A. K.  Chaturvedi, 2012-1 JLJ 78; 2012-1 MPLJ 282)

In A-One Granites v. State of U.P. [(2001)3 SCC 537], the Supreme Court observed that where no consideration was given to the question, the decision cannot be said to be binding and precedents sub silentio and without arguments are of no moment. (Referred to in: Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chhindwara v. A. K.  Chaturvedi, 2012-1 JLJ 78; 2012-1 MPLJ 282)

Binding Precedent- In Nutshell

No Binding Precedent if relevant STATUTORY PROVISION was Not considered. [Union of India v. Maniklal Banerjee, AIR 2006 SC 2844] 

Where no consideration was given to the question, the decision cannot be said to be binding; and precedents SUB SILENTIO – Without Arguments – are of NO MOMENT. [A-One Granites v. State of U.P., 2001-3 SCC 537] 
 
A decision is available as a precedent only if it DECIDES a QUESTION OF LAW. [State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1593: 1992-1 SCC 489]. Not facts. [Prakash Chandra Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1960 SC 195] 

RATIO DECIDENDI is Binding Precedent: Mere Casual Expressions – Not of Much Avail.[ Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 555; State of Maharashtra v. Bhakti Vedanta Book Trust, AIR 2013 SC 1667; 2013-4 SCC 676; Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher, AIR 2013 SC 3757; 2013 5 SCC 627; Arun Kumar Aggarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2011 SC 3056; 2014-13 SCC 707). 

For Binding Precedent, finding  must be ‘RATIO DECIDENDI’ (necessary to the decision); and  Not obiter dicta. [Allen in ‘Law in the Making’; Quoted in: Chandrapal Singh v. State of U. P. (All), 2023-11 ADJ 543; Chandrapal Singh v. State of U. P. (All), 2023-11 ADJ 543)]

Court’s order is binding on the parties under res judicata; the RATIO DECIDENDI is binding on other Courts as binding precedent. [The Modern English Legal System (4th Edition) by Smith, Bailey and Gunn (Sweet & Maxwell, 2002), pages 518-519] 
 
What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein. [State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra, AIR 1968 SC 647; Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi, 1996-6 SCC 44; Secunderabad Club v. CIT, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1004, 2023-457 ITR 263 (SC) 

The doctrine of precedent mandates that an exposition of law must be followed and applied. [State of U.P. v. Ajay Kumar Sharma, 2016-15 SCC 289]. 

Res judicata bars raising the same issue. Judicial precedent is not concerned with issues between parties. (Spencer Bower, Turner and Handley’s Commentary on the Doctrine of Res Judicata (Butterworths: London, Edinburgh, Dublin – 1996, pages 8 and 9)

Res judicata pertains to the parties;  precedent refers to a binding declaration of law that applies to courts or authorities. [Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, 01 Nov 2024, 2024 KER 80988]. 

A decision on the ‘construction of that document’ can operates as a judicial precedent against one though he was not a party to that litigation (Sahu Madho Dass v. Mukand Ram, 1955 AIR SC 481).

Res Judicata Binds Parties; Ratio Decidendi (as binding precedent) Binds Courts

In The Modern English Legal System (4th Edition) by Smith, Bailey and Gunn (Sweet & Maxwell, 2002), pages 518-519, says as under:

  • “…. Thus the Court’s order is binding on the parties under the res judicata doctrine; the ratio decidendi is binding on other Courts in accordance with the principles outlined above under the doctrine of binding precedent. A startling illustration of the distinction was provided by the following series of cases. A testator, John Arkle Waring, left annuities to Mr. Howard and Mrs. Louie Burton-Butler ‘free of income tax’. In 1942 the Court of Appeal in Re warning, Westminster Bank Ltd. v. Awdry : (1942) Ch. 426 on an appeal in which Howard was a party, held that income tax had to be deducted. Louie was not a party as she was in an enemy occupied country. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused. Four years later the House of Lords in Berke¬ley v. Berkeley : (1946) A.C. 555 overruled the Awdry case. Subsequently, Jenkins J. held that the Awdry case was res judica¬ta so far as Howard was concerned notwithstanding that its ratio had been overruled in Berkeley v. Berkeley and that Louie’s annuity would be dealt with in accordance with the later case. (See Re Warning, Westminster Bank v. Burton-Butler : (1948) Ch. 221).”
  • (Quoted in: Kalinga Mining Corporation v. Union of India (AK Ganguly, CJ, then) 2007-104 CLT 737, Ori)

Spencer Bower, Turner and Handley’s Commentary on the Doctrine of Res Judicata (Butterworths: London, Edinburgh, Dublin – 1996, pages 8 and 9), explains the concept of res judicata as under:

  • “There is an essential difference between res judicata estoppel and the doctrine of judicial precedent. Under the former a final decision in fact or law by any Court having jurisdiction precludes either party (except on appeal) from again raising the same issue against the other in any Court. The doctrine of judicial precedent, on the other hand, is not concerned with issues between parties. …
  • The difference is illustrated by the cases of Re Waring decided in 1942 and 1948. In the first Farwell J held that Section 25 of the Finance Act 1941 was not applicable (1942) Ch. 309 to an annuity; but the Court of Appeal reversed this decision. (1942) Ch. 426. The effect was two-fold; it decided as res judicata between the parties that Section 25 applied, and it bound Courts up to the Court of Appeal in other cases. In Berkeley v. Bekeley (1946) AC 555, the House of Lords overruled Re Waring. In 1948 the trustees sought a decision as between themselves and the annuitant who had not been joined in the first proceedings. (1948) Ch. 221. The other annuitant remained bound by the earlier decision, but the result (see Duke of Bedford v. Elliz : (1901) AC 1 at 8), was otherwise governed by Berkeley v. Berkeley: Gisborne Sheepfarmers’ Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. IRC : (1962) NZLR 810 at 814.” (Quoted in: Kalinga Mining Corporation v. Union of India (AK Ganguly, CJ, Ori) 2007-104 CLT 737)

In State of M.P. v. Mulam Chandi, AIR 1973 MP293, it has been held as under:

  • “As between a decision which operates as res judicata and a decision which is binding as a precedent but not res judicata, the former must prevail.”

Res judicata Apply parties, Precedent is binding declaration of law; 

Not open to Ignore the Judgment (Ratio Decidendi) of the Supreme Court

Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, 01 Nov 2024, 2024 KER 80988, it is held by the Kerala High Court as under:

  • Typically, a statutory regulation can be challenged on two grounds: first, for violating fundamental rights, and second, for being inconsistent with the parent Act. Once the Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge to the regulation, any court bound by the declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution cannot revisit a binding judgment of the Supreme Court on different grounds. It is important to differentiate between precedent and res judicata. Res judicata pertains to the parties involved in a particular case, while precedent refers to a binding declaration of law that applies to courts or authorities and is independent of the rights and obligations of the parties involved.
  • In other words, precedent falls within the category of case law in the hierarchical system of adjudication and serves as a source of law that binds inferior authorities to the legal declarations made by superior authorities. The binding nature of precedent brings in certainty of law to be followed by all courts and authorities. In contrast, res judicata pertains to procedural rules that bind litigating parties to previous judgments on the same issue.
  • It is the ratio decidendi that determines the binding nature of a precedent, not the cause of action. …. The cause of action refers to the bundle of facts that give rise to a legal action, which is crucial in determining the applicability of the principles of res judicata but not necessarily on binding nature of precedent. Only the Supreme Court has the authority to revisit its own declared law; no other court can do so. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. and Another v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2004) 12 SCC 645], where it stated in paragraph 62:
    • “62. It is well settled that the judgments of this Court are binding on all the authorities under Article (142*) 141 of the Constitution and it is not open to any authority to ignore a binding judgment of this Court on the ground that the full facts had not been placed before this Court and/or the judgment of this Court in the earlier proceedings had only collaterally or incidentally decided the issues raised in the show-cause notices. Such an attempt to belittle the judgments and the orders of this Court, to say the least, is plainly perverse and amounts to gross contempt of this Court. We are pained to say that the then Deputy Collector has scant respect for the orders passed by the Apex Court. (sic) ”

Interpretation of a Document can Be a Binding Judicial Precedent

In Sahu Madho Dass v. Mukand Ram, 1955 AIR SC 481, it was observed out as under:

  • “Mukand Ram was not a party to that litigation and the decision does not bind him but it operates as a judicial precedent about the construction of that document, a precedent with which we respectfully agree.” (Referred to in: Syed Hafiz Mir v. Abdul Nayeemkhan, AIR 1960  MP 50; Potluri Saraswathi v. Vallabhaneni Veerabhadra Rao, 2004-7 ALT 120; Harabati v. Jasodhara Debi, AIR 1977  Ori  143; Ramachandra Bhat v. Srideviamma, AIR 1976 Kar 217; Katragadda China Anjaneyulu v. Kattragadda China Ramayya, 1965  AIR AP 177)

In R. V. Bhupal Prasad v. Saleha Begum, 2002 Supp2 ALD 735; 2001-5 ALT 770, it is pointed out that in Anjaneyulu v. Ramaiah, 1965-1 ALT 149, a Full Bench of the Andhra High Court held that interpretation of a material document in a prior proceeding between the same parties even if does not operate as res judicata would be a binding judicial precedent in a subsequent proceeding between the parties based on that document.

Even an erroneous decision operates as res judicata

In Bindeswari v. Bageshwari, AIR 1936 PC 46, it was held as under:

  • “Where the decision of the Court in a previous suit determined that the section had never applied to a transaction, a Court in a new suit between the same parties with regard to the same transaction cannot try a new the issue as to its applicability in face of the express prohibition in Section 11 of the Code. “

In Mohanlal Goenka v. Benoy Kishna, AIR 1953 SC 65 it was laid down  as under:

  • “(23) There is ample authority for the proposition that even an erroneous decision on a question of law operates as res judicata between the parties to it. The correctness or otherwise of a judicial decision has no bearing upon the question whether or not it operates as res judicata. A decision in the previous execution case between the parties that the matter was not within the competence of the executing court even though erroneous is binding on the parties; see Abhoy Kanta Gohain v. Gopinath Deb Goswami AIR 1943 Cal. 460.”

No Binding precedent if relevant statutory provision was Not considered

A Full Bench of the Allahabad  HighmCourt, in  Indian Ceramic House, Langra-Ki-Chowki, Agra v. Sales Tax Officer, II Sector, Agra : 1970 SCC OnLine All 193, observed as under:

  • “A Judgment is authoritative only as to that part of it which is considered to have been necessary to the decision of the case, and not that part which was not necessary to its decision. The first is called ‘ratio decidendi’. Which is binding as a precedent. The other called ‘obiter dicta’ cannot be treated as a binding precedent though the opinion so expressed is entitled to respect.” (Quoted in Chandrapal Singh v. State of U. P. (All), 2023-11 ADJ 543)

Allen in ‘Law in the Making’ said as under:

  • “Any judgment of any Court is authoritative only as to that part of it, called the ‘ratio decidendi’, which is considered to have been necessary to the decision of the actual issue between the litigants. It is for the Court, of whatever degree, which is called upon to consider the precedent, to determine what the true ‘ratio decidendi’ was…………..Judicial opinions upon such matters, whether they be merely casual, or wholly gratuitous or (as is far more usual) of what may be called collateral relevance, are known as ‘obiter dicta or simply ‘dicta’, and it is extremely difficult to establish any standard of their relative weight.” (Quoted in : Chandrapal Singh v. State of U. P. (All), 2023-11 ADJ 543). (Quoted in : Chandrapal Singh v. State of U. P. (All), 2023-11 ADJ 543).

The Supreme Court in Jayant Verma v. Union of India, (2018) 4 SCC 743, quoted the dissenting judgement of A.P. Sen, J. in Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 3 SCC 745, with approval :

  • “54. This question is answered by referring to authoritative works and judgments of this Court. In Precedent in English Law by Cross and Harris (4th edn.), ‘ratio decidendi’ is described as follows: “The ratio decidendi of a case is any rule of law expressly or impliedly treated by the judge as a necessary step in reaching his conclusion, having regard to the line of reasoning adopted by him, or a necessary part of his direction to the jury.”

In Union of India v. Maniklal Banerjee, AIR 2006 SC 2844, the Apex Court has held as under:

  • “It is now well-settled that if a decision has been rendered without taking into account the statutory provision, the same cannot be considered to be a binding precedent. This Court, in Pritam Singh, while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction, might have refused to interfere with the decision. The same, therefore, did not constitute any binding precedent.” (Referred to in: Hameeda Begum v. Champa Bai Jain (Arun Misra, J.), ILR 2009 MP 2328; 2009-3 MPLJ 472)

Arun Misra, J., referred to the House of Lords’ decision in Hameeda Begum v. Champa Bai Jain, ILR 2009 MP 2328; 2009-3 MPLJ 472, and said as under:

  • “(35) Another decision relied upon is rendered by the House of Lords in Watt vs. Ahsan (2007) UKHL 51. In the aforesaid case, question arose on Section 12 of the Race Relations Act, 1976. The submission was made that they were party and that All vs. Mcdonagh (2002) ICR 1026 was wrongly decided. In any case, the interpretation given to Section 12 by the EAT in Sawyer v. Ahsan (2000) ICR 1 is res judicata between him and the Labour Party, not only for the purposes of his first complaint but for the other two as well. It was opined that the EAT was wrong in Sawyer vs. Ahsan (2000) ICR 1 to hold that the Labour Party was a qualifying body, but there was no appeal against the decision of EAT; it was held that decision was binding upon the parties, though wrong in law. When the Tribunal was-having the jurisdiction to decide the question, it is binding upon the parties though erroneous.
  • There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition, but here we are concerned with the fresh cause of action on which suit is based and previously relevant statutory provision of Section 111 (d) of TP Act was not taken into consideration, question of determination of tenancy was also not decided.”

Ratio Decidendi (alone) Forms a Precedent; Not the Final Order or Conclusion.

Ratio decidendi literally means “reason for deciding”.

In B. Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, AIR 1967 SC 1480, it was observed that a decision is binding not because of its (final) conclusion but with regard to its ratio and the principle laid down therein.  (Referred to in: Secunderabad Club v. CIT, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1004, 2023-457 ITR 263 (SC).

A Case is only an Authority for what it Actually Decides

In State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra, AIR 1968 SC 647, wherein after relying on British authorities it was held:

  • “13….A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein, nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. On this topic, this is what Earl of Halsbury L.C. said in Quinn v. Leathem [[1901] AC 495]:
  • “Now before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood, [1898] AC 1 and what was decided therein, there are two observations of a general character which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I have very often said before, that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all. It is not a profitable task to extract a sentence here and there from a judgment and to build upon it.”

Questions which are Essentially Questions of Fact, Cannot be Cited as Precedents

In State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1593: 1992-1 SCC 489, it is laid down as under:

  • “A decision is available as a precedent only if it decides a question of law.”

In Prakash Chandra Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1960 SC 195, it is held as under:

  • “Learned counsel for the appellant cited before us a number of reported decisions of this Court bearing on the appreciation of circumstantial evidence. We need not refer to those authorities. It is enough to say that decisions even of the highest court on questions which are essentially questions of fact, cannot be cited as precedents governing the decision of other cases which must rest in the ultimate analysis upon their own particular facts.” 

The Supreme Court (B.V. Nagarathna, J.)observed in Secunderabad Club v. CIT, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1004, 2023-457 ITR 263 (SC), as under:

  • “22. Further, the precedential value of an order of the Supreme Court which is not preceded by a detailed judgment would be lacking inasmuch as an issue would not have been categorically dealt with. What is of essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein, nor what logically follows from the various observations made therein.”

A case is only an authority for what it decides, and not from what logically follows from it (Ram Krishan Ram Nath v. Janpad Sabha, AIR 1967 SC 1073)

Ratio Decidendi – Basis of Reasons and Principles Underlying a Decision

It is the discernable ratio decidendi which forms a precedent and not the final order in the judgment (Sanjay Singh v. Uttar Pradesh PSC, Allahabad, 2007-3 SCC 720).

The Supreme Court, in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, 1990 (4) SCC 207, said as under::

  • “19. The doctrine of precedent, that is being bound by a previous decision, is limited to the decision itself and as to what is necessarily involved in it. It does not mean that this Court is bound by the various reasons given in support of it, especially when they contain “propositions wider than the case itself required”. This was what Lord Selborne said in Caledonian Railway Co. v. Walker’s Trustees [(1882) 7 App Cas 259 : 46 LT 826 (HL)] and Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathem [1901 AC 495, 502 : 17 TLR 749 (HL)]. Sir Frederick Pollock has also said :
  • “Judicial authority belongs not to the exact words used in this or that judgment, nor even to all the reasons given, but only to the principles accepted and applied as necessary grounds of the decision.”

Decision Applicable Only to Facts Cannot be a Binding Precedent

The basis of reasons and principles underlying a decision is ratio decidendi. It is distinct from the ultimate relief granted in a given case. Therefore, the decision applicable only to the facts of the case cannot be treated as a binding precedent.

Ratio Decidendi Is Binding Precedent: Casual Words, Not of Much Avail

In Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 555, it is pointed out as under:

  • “Hence, in light of the aforementioned judicial pronouncements, which have well settled the proposition that only the ratio decidendi can act as the binding or authoritative precedent, it is clear that the reliance placed on mere general observations or casual expressions of the Court, is not of much avail to the respondents.”
  • (Quoted in: State of Maharashtra v. Bhakti Vedanta Book Trust, AIR 2013 SC 1667; 2013-4 SCC 676;
  • Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher, AIR 2013 SC 3757; 2013 5 SCC 627;
  • Arun Kumar Aggarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2011 SC 3056; 2014-13 SCC 707)

A deliberate decision after hearing on a question constitute a precedent

A three Judge Bench of our Apex Court, in Union of India v. Dhanawanti Devi, (1996) 6 SCC 44. held as under:

  • “9. It is not everything said by a Judge while giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a judge’s decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi. According to the well-settled theory of precedents, every decision contains three basic postulates –
  • (i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible facts;
  • (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and
  • (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of the above.
  • A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in the judgment. Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there is not intended to be exposition of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. It would, therefore, be not profitable to extract a sentence here and there from the judgment and to build upon it because the essence of the decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. The concrete decision alone is binding between the parties to it, but it is the abstract ratio decidendi, ascertained on a consideration of the judgment in relation to the subject matter of the decision, which alone has the force of law and which, when it is clear what it was, is binding. It is only the principle laid down in the judgment that is binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution. A deliberate judicial decision arrived at after hearing an argument on a question which arises in the case or is put in issue may constitute a precedent, no matter for what reason, and the precedent by long recognition may mature into rule of stare decisis. It is the rule deductible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of the case which constitutes its ratio decidendi.
  • 10. Therefore, in order to understand and appreciate the binding force of a decision it is always necessary to see what were the facts in the case in which the decision was given and what was the point which had to be decided. No judgment can be read as if it is a statute. A word or a clause or a sentence in the judgment cannot be regarded as a full exposition of law. Law cannot afford to be static and therefore, Judges are to employ an intelligent technique in the use of precedents……” (Quoted in: Vishal N.  Kalsaria v. Bank of India, 2016-3 SCC 762)

Law laid down by SC – if only there is a Speaking Order;  Not by Dismissal In Limine

It was added, in Secundrabad Club v. CIT – V, 17-08- 2023; 2023-457 ITR 263 (SC), as under:

  • “23. Another important principle to be borne in mind is that declaration of the law by the Supreme Court can be said to have been made only when it is contained in a speaking order, either expressly or by necessary implication and not by dismissal in limine.”

Law ‘Declared’, and ‘found or made’

While speaking about judicial precedents, in DTC v. DTC Mazdoor Congress Union, AIR 1991 SC 101, Mukherji, CJ., laid down that the expression ‘declared’ is wider than the words ‘found or made’. The latter expression involves the process, while the former expresses the result. (Referred to in: Secunderabad Club v. CIT, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1004, 2023-457 ITR 263 (SC).

Ratio Decidendi alone is Binding Precedent; It is statements of principles of law

The Supreme Court observed further in Secundrabad Club v. CIT, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1004, 2023-457 ITR 263 (SC), as under

  • “13. It is a settled position of law that only the ratio decidendi of a judgment is binding as a precedent.”

B.V. Nagarathna, J. held (in Secundrabad Club v. CIT, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1004, 2023-457 ITR 263 (SC) as under:

  • “According to the well-settled theory of precedents, every decision contains three basic ingredients:
  • .(i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of fact is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct or perceptible facts;
  • (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and
  • (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of (i) and (ii) above.
  • For the purposes of the parties themselves and their privies, ingredient (iii) is the material element in the decision, for, it determines finally their rights and liabilities in relation to the subject-matter of the action. It is the judgment that estops the parties from reopening the dispute. However, for the purpose of the doctrine of precedent, ingredient (ii) is the vital element in the decision. This is the ratio decidendi. It is not everything said by a judge when giving a judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a judge’s decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi.”

A “collateral or incidental” finding would not ordinarily be res judicata.

If only finding is “Necessary”, then only it is “Directly and Substantially” in issue

In Sajjadanashin Sayed v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer, (2000) 3 SCC 350 the Supreme Court held that to attract res judicata on an earlier finding, the matter must have been directly and substantially in issue and that the finding on an issue came “collaterally or incidentally” would not ordinarily be res judicata. It was pointed out that if only the issue was “necessary” to be decided for adjudicating on the principal issue and had actually been decided, then only it would have to be treated as “directly and substantially” in issue; and that it is also necessary that the judgment was in fact based upon that decision.

For Res Judicata – Adjudication of the Issue Material and Essential

In Sajjadanashin it is pointed out as under:

  • “Where title to property is the basis of the right of possession, a decision on the question of possession is res judicata on the question of title to the extent that adjudication of title was essential to the judgment; but where the question of the right to possession was the only issue actually or necessary involved, the judgment is not conclusive on the question of ownership or title.”

Referring to Sajjadanashin Sayed, it is observed in Nand Ram v. Jagdish Prasad: AIR  2020 SC 1884 that a material test to be applied is whether the court considered the adjudication of the issue material and essential for its decision.

  • (Sajjadanashin Sayed v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer, (2000) 3 SCC 350, is quoted and followed in: M.S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 273.)

Referring to Sajjadanashin Sayed it is observed in Union of India Vs. Vijay Krishna Uniyal, 2017-12 SCALE 704, that one has to examine the plaint, the written statement, the issues and the judgment to find out if the matter was directly and substantially in issue.

In Sajjadanashin Sayed v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer, AIR 2000 SC 1238, observed as under:

  • “Point No. 1:
  • 11. The words “collaterally” or “incidentally in issue” have come up for interpretation in several common law jurisdictions in the context of the principle of res judicata. While the principle has been accepted that matters collaterally or incidentally in issue are not ordinarily res judicata, it has however been accepted that there are exceptions to this rule. The English, American, Australian and Indian Courts and Jurists have therefore proceeded to lay down certain tests to find out if even an earlier finding on such an issue can be res judicata in a later proceedings. There appears to be a common thread in the tests laid down in all these countries. We shall therefore refer to these developments.
  • 12. Matters Collaterally or incidentally in issue:
  • It will be noticed that the words used in Section 11 CPC are “directly and substantially in issue.” If the matter was in issue directly and substantially in a prior litigation and decided against a party then the decision would be res judicata in a subsequent proceeding. Judicial decisions have however held that if a matter was only `collaterally or incidentally in issue and decided in an earlier proceeding, the finding therein would not ordinarily be res judicata in a latter proceeding where the matter is directly and substantially in issue.
  • 13. As pointed out in Halsbury’s Laws of England (Vol. 16, Para 1538) (4th Ed.), the fundamental rule is that a judgment is not conclusive if any matter came collaterally in question [R. vs. Knaptoft Inhabitants, Heptulla Bros vs. Thakore; or if any matter was incidentally cognizable Sanders (otherwise Saunders) vs. Sanders (otherwise Saunders)].
  • 14. A collateral or incidental issue is one that is ancillary to a direct and substantive issue; the former is an auxiliary issue and the latter the principal issue. The expression collaterally or incidentally in issue implies that there is another matter which is directly and substantially in issue (Mulla, CPC 15th Ed. p. 104).
  • 15. Difficulty in distinguishing whether a matter was directly in issue or collaterally or incidentally in issue and tests laid down in various Courts:
  • Difficulty in this area of law has been felt in various jurisdictions and therefore some tests have been evolved. Halsbury says (Vol. 16, Para 1538) (4th Ed.) that while the general principle is clear “difficulty arises in the application of the rule in determining in each case what was the point decided and what was the matter incidentally cognizable, and the opinion of Judges seems to have undergone some fluctuations.”
  • 16. Spencer Bower and Turner on The Doctrine of Res Judicata (2nd Ed, 1969) (p. 181) refer to the English and Australian experience and quota Dixon, J. of the Australian High Court in Blair v. Curran to say: “The difficulty in the actual application of these conceptions is to distinguish the matters fundamental or cardinal to the prior decision on judgment, or necessarily involved in it as its legal justification or foundation, from matters which, even though actually raised and decided as being in the circumstances of the case the determining considerations, yet are not in point of law the essential foundation of a groundwork of the judgment.” The authors say that in order to understand with essential distinction, one has always to inquire with unrelenting severity – is the determination upon which it is sought to find an estoppel so fundamental to the substantive decision that the latter cannot stand without the former. Nothing less than this will do. It is suggested by Dixon, J that even where this inquiry is answered satisfactorily, there is still another test to pass: viz. whether the determination is the immediate foundation” of the decision as opposed to merely “a proposition collateral or subsidiary only, i.e. not more than part of the reasoning supporting the conclusion.” It is well settled, say the above authors “that a mere step in reasoning is insufficient. What is required is no less than the determination of law, or fact or both, fundamental to the substantive decision.”

A Deliberate Judicial Decision Alone is Judicial Precedent

As regards binding precedent it is observed in Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi, (1996) 6 SCC 44, as under:

  • “9…..It is not everything said by a Judge while giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge’s decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi. According to the well-settled theory of precedents, every decision contains three basic postulates-
    • (i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible facts;
    • (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and
    • (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides.
  • What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in the judgment. Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there is not intended to be exposition of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. It would, therefore, be not profitable to extract a sentence here and there from the judgment and to build upon it because the essence of the decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. The concrete decision alone is binding between the parties to it, but it is the abstract ratio decidendi, ascertained on a consideration of the judgment in relation to the subject-matter of the decision, which alone has the force of law and which, when it is clear what it was, is binding. It is only the principle laid down in the judgment that is binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution. A deliberate judicial decision arrived at after hearing an argument on a question which arises in the case or is put in issue may constitute a precedent, no matter for what reason, and the precedent by long recognition may mature into rule of stare decisis. It is the rule deductible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of the case which constitutes its ratio decidendi. “

Res Judicata: The Issue Should Have Been “Necessary to be Decided”

In PMA Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, AIR 1995 SC 2001, it is held as under:

  • “57. It is fairly settled that the finding on an issue in the earlier suit to operate as res judicate should not have been only directly and substantially in issue but it should have been necessary to be decided as well.”

A Compromise Decree is not a decision by the Court; No Res Judicata

In Pulavarthi Venkata Subba Rao v. Valluri Jagannadha Rao, AIR 1967 SC 591, the Supreme Court has laid down as under :

  • “A compromise decree is not a decision by the Court, it is the acceptance by the Court of something to which the parties had agreed. It has been said that a compromise decree merely sets the seal of the Court on the agreement of the parties. The Court did not decide, anything. Nor can it be said that the decision of the Court was implicit in it.”
  • See also: Daryao v. State of UP, 1962- I SCR 574;
  • Vidya Sagar v. Sudesh Kumari, 1976-1 SCC 115;
  • Jamia Masjid v. K. V.  Rudrappa, AIR 2021 SC 4523; 2022-9 SCC 225.

In Baldevdas Shivlal and another v. Filmistan Distributors (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1970 SC 406, it is held as under:

  • “A consent decree according to the decisions of this Court does not operate as res-judicata because a consent decree is merely the record of contract between the parties to a suit, to which is superadded the seal of the Court. A matter in contest in a suit may operate as res-judicata only if there is an adjudication by the Court; the terms of section 11 of the Code leave no scope for a contrary view.”

Cardinal feature of Common Law – Stand by Precedent

In State of U.P. v. Ajay Kumar Sharma, 2016-15 SCC 289, it is held as under:

  • 10. Time and again this Court has emphatically restated the essentials and principles of ‘precedent’ and of Stare Decisis which are a cardinal feature of the hierarchical character of all Common Law judicial systems. The doctrine of precedent mandates that an exposition of law must be followed and applied even by coordinate or co-equal Benches and certainly by all smaller Benches and subordinate courts. That is to say that a smaller and a later Bench has no freedom other than to apply the law laid down by the earlier and larger Bench; that is the law which is said to hold the field. Apart from Article 141, it is a policy of the courts to stand by precedent and not to disturb a settled point. The purpose of precedents is to bestow predictability on judicial decisions and it is beyond cavil that certainty in law is an essential ingredient of rule of law. A departure may only be made when a coordinate or co-equal Bench finds the previous decision to be of doubtful logic or efficacy and consequentially, its judicial conscience is so perturbed and aroused that it finds it impossible to follow the existing ratio. The Bench must then comply with the discipline of requesting the Hon’ble Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench.”

Modern English Practice

In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225, it is pointed out as under:

  • “47. Though English Courts in the past accepted the Blackstonian theory and though the House of Lords strictly adhered to the doctrine of ‘precedent’ in the earlier years, both the doctrines were practically given up by the “Practice Statement (Judicial precedent)” issued by the House of Lords, recorded in (1966) 1 WLR 1234. Lord Gardiner L.C., speaking for the House of Lords made the following observations;
  • “Their Lordships nevertheless recognise that too rigid adherence to precedent may lead to injustice in a particular case and also unduly restrict the proper development of the law. They propose, therefore, to modify their present practice and, while treating former decisions of this House as normally binding, to depart from a previous decision when it appears right to do so.”

Article 141 in Constitution of India 141

Article 141 mandates the courts in India to follow the law declared by the Apex Court. It reads as under:

  • “Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts: The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.”

The enacted laws do not speak about binding judicial precedents. But, the common law expounds the principles thereon, following the principles adopted by English Courts. By virtue of this convention, the principle of law applied in an earlier case is followed in subsequent cases, and the decision of a larger bench is honoured by the smaller bench.

Article 141 declares that the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India will be a ‘Source of Law’.

Larger Bench Decision is binding on Bench of lesser strength

It is observed in Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary, AIR 2024 (SC) 714; 2024-3 SCC 224 (Vikram Nath, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.) as under:

  • “1. The rule of ‘Judicial Discipline and Propriety’ and the Doctrine of precedents has a merit of promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions providing assurance to individuals as to the consequences of their actions. The Constitution benches of this court have time and again reiterated the rules emerging from judicial Discipline. Accordingly, when a decision of a coordinate Bench of same High court is brought to the notice of the bench, it is to be respected and is binding subject to right of the bench of such co-equal quorum to take a different view and refer the question to a larger bench. It is the only course of action open to a bench of co-equal strength, when faced with the previous decision taken by a bench with same strength.”

The Apex Court referred the following decisions –

  • Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359
  • Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 2 SCC 673
  • State of Punjab , v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd., (2004) 11 SCC 26

In Sita Soren v. Union of India, AIR 2024 SC 1701; 2024-5 SCC 629, it is pointed out as under:

  • “24. A decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or coequal strength. A Bench of lesser strength cannot disagree with or dissent from the view of the law taken by the bench of larger strength. However, a bench of the same strength can question the correctness of a decision rendered by a co-ordinate bench. In such situations, the case is placed before a bench of larger strength. [Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 2 SCC 673, Para 12]”

Minority Decision may a binding precedent (when no disagreement by majority)

In Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 INSC 835; 2024 KLT(Online) 2648; 2024 8 Supreme 387; 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 990, it is pointed out (in the Majority View: DY Chandrachud, CJI, Hrishikesh Roy, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma, Augustine George Masih, JJ.- Minority, B.V. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.) as under:

  • “102. It must be noted, however, that there is a difference between whether an observation is a binding precedent and whether it is a position of law that may have persuasive value on subsequent benches. In the absence of disagreement by a majority of judges (either express or implied), nothing precludes subsequent benches of this Court from relying on observations made in a concurring opinion (on behalf of the minority of judges) which are not discussed by the other judges at all. It is assumed in such cases, that all judges on the bench have read the opinions of one another, and did not deem it necessary to either state their express disagreement with the opinion or lay down a different understanding of the proposition of law (implied disagreement).”

Are the Trial Courts bound by its Previous Decisions

No.

  • A Munsiff or a Subordinate Judge is not bound to follow his previous decision as a judicial precedent. Such rulings are at best persuasive, not obligatory.

Certainty demands Consistency

Certainty and consistency in judicial decisions are necessary for providing assurance to individuals as to the consequences of their actions. Applying this principle, a Munsiff or Sub-judge is bound to follow the principles he (or his predecessor in office) had adopted in a previous decision. But it is not a constitutional mandate. No common-aw doctrines also direct so. Still, when such a precedent (judgment or order) is placed either by producing the same in evidence or by pointing out the same in the argument of the case, judicial courtesy and comity require the Munsiff or the judge to explain reasons if he deviates from the earlier stance.

In Land Acquisition cases it is common that earlier decisions are cited for showing the reasonable compensation.

Also Read

•➧ Ratio Decidendi (alone) Forms a Precedent; Not the Final Order or Conclusion.
             •➧ Relevancy of a Civil Case Judgment in Criminal Cases: Does a Civil Court Judgment Bind a Criminal Court?
             •➧ Prem Raj v.  Poonamma Menon (SC), April 2, 2024 – An Odd Decision on ‘Civil Court Judgment Does Not Bind Criminal Court’.
             •➧ Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction lies in Fraudulent Intention ‘at the time of Promise’.  No Criminal Case endures on a Dispute Essentially Civil in Nature.
             •➧ Res Judicata and Judicial Precedent
             •➧ No Res judicata on Finding on Title in an Injunction Suit
             •➧ What are “Relevant Under Some Other Provisions of this Act” in Sec. 43?
          •➧ Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
            •➧ Alternative Pleadings on Title and Adverse Possession: Mutually Inconsistent or Mutually Destructive?
             •➧Res Judicata: ‘Same issue’ must have been ‘Adjudicated’ in the former suit

End Notes:

Sec. 11 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, reads as under:

  • Res Judicata -No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
  • Explanation I– The expression “former suit” shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.
  • Explanation II.- For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.
  • Explanation III.- The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.
  • Explanation IV.- Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
  • Explanation V.- Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.
  • Explanation VI– Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.
  • Explanation VII.- The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and reference in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to proceedings for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.
  • Explanation VIII.-An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in as subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Criminal

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Unknown's avatar

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment