Saji Koduvath
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.”
No Binding Force – If Judgment failedto notice a plain statutory provision
In Mamleshwar Prasad v. Kanhaiya Lal, (1975) 2 SCC 232, the Supreme Court recognised that, in an exceptional case, an obvious inadvertence or oversight resulting in failure to notice a plain statutory provision may deprive a judgment of its binding precedential force. The omission must be glaring, not merely an alleged error of interpretation. The Court held as under:
- “We do not intend to detract from the rule that, in exceptional instances, where by obvious inadvertence or oversight a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, it may not have the sway of binding precedents. It should be a glaring case, an obtrusive omission. No such situation presents itself here and we do not embark on the principle of judgment per incuriam.”
