In our previous articles, we already discussed about ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. Now we will discuss the four major differences between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta.
4 major differences between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta are:
- Ratio decidendi may be described as a rule of law applied by and acted on by the court, or the rule which the court regarded as governing the case. An obiter dictum is a statement made by a judge in course of his judgment which may not be precisely relevant to the issues before him.
- The ratio decidendi has binding authority and is binding on subordinate courts. An obiter dictum has no such authority. It is a casual expression by the courts which carries no weight.
- According to Goodhart, the rule of law based on material facts is ratio decidendi. The rule of law based on mere hypothetical facts is obiter dicta.
- Ratio decidendi is a rule of law expressly or impliedly treated by the judge as a necessary step in reaching the conclusion. An obiter dictum is a rule of law stand by a judge which was neither expressly nor impliedly treated by him as a necessary step in reaching his conclusion.
The distinction between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta can better be understood by the following example.
In S.R. Bommai V. Union of India, the nine judges bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that secularism is one of the basic structures of the constitution of India.
Justice P.B. Sawant and Justice Kuldeep Singh observed that social pluralism is one of the basic structures. While Justice K. Ramaswamy observed that socialism, social justice and fraternity are included in the basic structure of the constitution.
The observations of the learned judges are obiter dicta as they are not directly in issue in the instant case. The ratio of the case is that secularism is one of the basic structures of the constitution of India
