Ratio Decidendi Meaning in Law, vs Obiter Dicta, in Hindi

Ratio decidendi (Latin for “the reason for deciding”) is the principle of law on which a court actually decides a case. The Supreme Court of India puts it this way: “The only thing in a Judge’s decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided” (Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi, 1996), and “It is the rule deductible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of the case which constitutes its ratio decidendi” (same judgment).

Other statements in a judgment that were not needed to decide the case – remarks made in passing, views on questions that did not have to be decided – are obiter dicta (“things said by the way”). In India the ratio of a Supreme Court decision is “law declared” under Article 141 of the Constitution and binds every court in the country. The Supreme Court has also said that “Normally even an obiter dictum is expected to be obeyed and followed” (Sarwan Singh Lamba v. Union of India, 1995), so its considered observations on law carry great weight even when they are not the ratio.

Ratio decidendi at a glance

Meaning: the principle of law on which the case was decided – “the principle upon which the case is decided” (Dhanwanti Devi, 1996).
Only what was decided binds: “A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides” (State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra, 1967).
Obiter dicta: statements “which are not part of the ratio decidendi” and “are not authoritative” (MCD v. Gurnam Kaur, 1988).
Supreme Court obiter: “Normally even an obiter dictum is expected to be obeyed and followed” (Sarwan Singh Lamba, 1995, five judges).
Article 141: “The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.”
High Courts: the law declared by a High Court binds the subordinate courts, tribunals and authorities under its superintendence (East India Commercial Co. v. Collector of Customs, 1962, majority of two judges to one; Article 227).
Benches: a larger bench’s decision binds a later bench “of lesser or co-equal strength” (Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community, 2004).
Exceptions: a decision given per incuriam (in ignorance of a binding statute or decision) or sub silentio (on a point never considered) is not a binding authority on that point.

Reviewed and updated by Century Law Firm, Delhi – October 2026. Statutory references are to the Acts as in force on that date. The Constitution of India is quoted from the Legislative Department’s 2026 English edition (as on 10 September 2026), its official Diglot Hindi edition and the India Code text; the judgments are quoted from the Supreme Court’s own copies on api.sci.gov.in.

What does ratio decidendi mean in law?

In law, the ratio decidendi (often shortened to “the ratio” of a case) is the legal reason that led the court to its decision on the facts before it. When lawyers ask “what is the ratio of the case?”, they mean: what rule of law did this judgment apply to decide the question in dispute? That rule is what later courts must follow in cases that raise the same question.

The Supreme Court has explained the idea in several judgments. In Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka (2003), Justice S.B. Sinha wrote: “The ratio decidendi of a judgment is its reasoning which can be deciphered only upon reading the same in its entirety.” He added that the ratio “is distinct from the relief finally granted or the manner adopted for its disposal”. The same opinion quotes an older Supreme Court decision: “It is also well known that ratio of a decision is the reasons assigned therein” (Rajeswar Prasad Mishra v. State of West Bengal, 1965).

So the ratio is neither the result (“appeal allowed”) nor the facts, but the principle of law that connects them.

The three parts of every decision

In Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi (21 August 1996, three judges), the Supreme Court said that every decision contains “three basic postulates”:

“findings of material facts” – the inference the judge draws from the direct, or perceptible, facts;
“statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts”; and
“judgment based on the combined effect of the above”.

The ratio is found in the second part, as applied to the first. The Court said it is “important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi”, and that “It is only the principle laid down in the judgment that is binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution.”

“A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides”

This sentence comes from a five-judge bench in State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra (7 November 1967). The Court went on: “What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein”, nor what merely seems to follow logically from those observations. It also said: “It is not a profitable task to extract a sentence here and there from a judgment and to build upon it.” Dhanwanti Devi repeated both ideas and added: “No judgment can be read as if it is a statute.”

Ratio decidendi and obiter dicta: the difference

Obiter dicta (singular: obiter dictum) are the parts of a judgment that were not needed to decide the case. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur (12 September 1988), the Supreme Court said: “Statements which are not part of the ratio decidendi are distinguished as obiter dicta and are not authoritative.” It also warned that “Mere casual expressions carry no weight at all” and that “Not every passing expression of a Judge, however eminent, can be treated as an ex cathedra statement”. For more on the companion maxim, see our post on obiter dictum.

Ratio decidendi v. obiter dicta Which part of a judgment binds later courts

A judgmentFacts found + principles of law + the result (Dhanwanti Devi, 1996)

↓

Ratio decidendiThe rule of law applied to the material facts to decide the question in issue. Binds later courts as a precedent.Supreme Court ratio: “law declared” under Article 141.

Obiter dictaRemarks not needed for the decision. Not authoritative as ratio (Gurnam Kaur, 1988).Supreme Court obiter: “normally” to be followed (Sarwan Singh Lamba, 1995).

Not the ratio: the reliefThe ratio is “distinct from the relief finally granted” (Islamic Academy, 2003).

Not the ratio: passing remarks“Mere casual expressions carry no weight at all” (Gurnam Kaur).

Read it whole“By reading a line here and there” one cannot find the ratio (Islamic Academy).

Prepared by Century Law Firm from Article 141 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s judgments in Dhanwanti Devi (1996), Gurnam Kaur (1988), Islamic Academy of Education (2003) and Sarwan Singh Lamba (1995) (official copies).

Is the obiter of the Supreme Court binding?

Not in the same way as its ratio, but courts below are expected to respect it. In Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Hazara Singh (12 March 1975), the Supreme Court approved as “set out correctly” a Kerala High Court passage saying that “even obiter dictum of the Supreme Court should be accepted as binding” and that a declaration of law by that Court “even if it be only by the way has to be respected”. The same passage adds a limit: not every statement in a Supreme Court judgment attracts Article 141, and “Statements on matters other than law have no binding force.” Twenty years later a five-judge bench said: “Normally even an obiter dictum is expected to be obeyed and followed” (Sarwan Singh Lamba v. Union of India, 12 May 1995).

Read together: a considered statement of law by the Supreme Court, even outside the ratio, should normally be followed by lower courts; a casual remark or a statement on facts is not law at all.

Two examples from the Supreme Court

The milk case (Hazara Singh, 1975). A Sessions Judge, acquitting a milk vendor, referred to a remark in an earlier Supreme Court judgment (Malwa Cooperative Milk Union v. Biharilal, 1967) about a “microscopic” shortfall in the sample. The Supreme Court explained that the earlier ratio concerned the High Court’s revisional power; the remark was made only “to drive home the point” and was “a casual statement” with “no kinship with the question under decision” – obiter.

The judicial officers case (Sudhansu Sekhar Misra, 1967). The Orissa High Court had relied on an observation in an earlier Supreme Court decision about the “cadre” of judicial officers to hold that it could post judicial officers to Secretariat posts. The Supreme Court said the earlier decision was about the meaning of “control over district court” in Article 235, and “The reference to the cadre was merely incidental.” The observation was therefore not the ratio, and the Supreme Court held that the High Court could recall its officers but could not “foist an officer on the Government”.

Article 141: why the ratio of a Supreme Court judgment binds every court

Article 141 of the Constitution reads: “The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.” What is “declared” is the principle of law, not every line of the judgment – “It is only the principle laid down in the judgment that is binding law under Article 141” (Dhanwanti Devi).

Orders that lay down no ratio

Some orders decide a case without declaring any law. Two kinds come up often:

Dismissal of a special leave petition (SLP) without reasons. In Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (19 July 2000), the Supreme Court held that such an order is not “a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution for there is no law which has been declared”. But if the order gives reasons, “the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141”, and its other findings bind the parties and the court below “by way of judicial discipline”. In neither case does the High Court’s order “merge” in the Supreme Court’s order.
Orders made by consent. When a direction or order is made by consent of the parties, “the Court does not adjudicate upon the rights of the parties nor lay down any principle” (Gurnam Kaur, 1988).

Which decisions bind which court

The binding force of a ratio depends on which court gave it and, inside the Supreme Court, on how many judges sat. The judges’ ranks and courts are explained in our post on the hierarchy of judges in India.

Benches of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court sits in benches of different sizes. Article 145(3) requires at least five judges to decide “any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution” or to hear a Presidential reference under Article 143. In Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra (17 December 2004), a five-judge bench summed up the rules:

The law laid down by a larger bench “is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength.”
A smaller bench “cannot doubt the correctness of the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum”. If it has doubts, it can only invite the attention of the Chief Justice and ask for the matter to be placed before a larger bench.
Only a bench of equal strength may express doubt about an earlier decision of the same strength; the matter then goes to a larger bench.
Two exceptions: the Chief Justice’s power of “framing the roster”, and a larger bench already hearing a matter may, “by way of exception (and not as a rule)”, re-examine a smaller bench’s view itself.

High Courts

There is no Article like Article 141 for High Courts. In East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta (4 May 1962), the majority of the Supreme Court noted that no provision like Article 141 makes the law declared by a High Court binding on subordinate courts, but held that this follows from the High Court’s power of superintendence under Article 227: “the law declared by the highest court in the State is binding on authorities or tribunals under its supreintendence [sic]”. Article 227(1) gives every High Court superintendence “over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction”. Justice Sarkar disagreed on this point. So the Delhi High Court’s ratio binds the district courts and tribunals under its superintendence. The judgment does not deal with courts outside the High Court’s territory; no provision makes a High Court’s decision binding on them, but they may cite it and consider its reasoning.

Which decisions bind which court Article 141, Article 227 and the Supreme Court’s bench rules

Supreme CourtIts “law declared” binds all courts in India (Article 141).

↓

Inside the Supreme CourtA larger bench binds a later bench of lesser or equal strength. A smaller bench in doubt asks the Chief Justice for a larger bench (Dawoodi Bohra, 2004).

High CourtIts law binds the subordinate courts and tribunals under its superintendence (East India Commercial, 1962, majority; Article 227).

↓

District and lower courtsBound by the Supreme Court and by their own High Court.

Courts outside that High CourtNot under its superintendence. No provision makes its decisions binding there; they may be cited.

No binding ratioSLP dismissed without reasons; consent orders; decisions per incuriam; points passed sub silentio.

Prepared by Century Law Firm from Articles 141 and 227 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s judgments in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community (2004), East India Commercial Co. (1962), Kunhayammed (2000) and Gurnam Kaur (1988) (official copies).

When an earlier decision does not bind: per incuriam, sub silentio and distinguishing

Per incuriam

In Dawoodi Bohra (2004) the Supreme Court said: “Per incuriam means a decision rendered by ignorance of a previous binding decision” – one of its own or of a court of co-ordinate or higher jurisdiction – or “in ignorance of the terms of a statute or of a rule having the force of law”. The same judgment limits the idea: a ruling that specifically refers to the earlier binding precedent “may or may not be correct but cannot be said to be per incuriam”. In Gurnam Kaur (1988) the Court declined to follow an earlier order made “without argument, without reference to the relevant provisions of the Act” and “without any citation of authority”.

Sub silentio

A point passes sub silentio (“in silence”) when it was logically involved in a decision but was never argued or considered. Gurnam Kaur adopts Salmond’s description: a decision passes sub silentio “when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the court or present to its mind”, and “the decision is not an authority” on that point. The judgment adds: “Precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment.”

Distinguishing

A court “distinguishes” an earlier decision when it shows that the material facts or the question in the present case are different, so the earlier ratio does not apply. The earlier decision is not overruled; it simply does not govern. The judgments explain why this is possible: “Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved” (Dhanwanti Devi), and “one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases” (Padma Sundara Rao, 2002, as quoted in Islamic Academy, 2003). In Sudhansu Sekhar Misra the Court held that the earlier reference to the cadre “was merely incidental” and did not apply it (the reporter’s headnote records the earlier decisions as “explained and distinguished”).

Prospective overruling

In I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (27 February 1967, eleven judges), Chief Justice Subba Rao, writing for five judges, applied a “doctrine of prospective over-ruling”, making the new ruling operate only for the future. He said it “can be invoked only in matters arising under our Constitution” and only by the Supreme Court. The judgment of three other judges rejected the doctrine, and a sixth judge, Justice Hidayatullah, did not rely on it.

How to find the ratio decidendi in a judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgments describe the method:

Read the whole judgment. The ratio “has to be found out only on reading the entire Judgment” (Islamic Academy, majority). Even the list of answers at the end of a long judgment is “merely a brief summation of the ratio”.
Note the material facts and the question. It is “always necessary to see what were the facts in the case” and “what was the point which had to be decided” (Dhanwanti Devi).
Find the rule of law that answered that question. The ratio is “the rule deductible from the application of law to the facts” (Dhanwanti Devi).
Set aside the relief and the passing remarks. The ratio is distinct from “the relief finally granted” (Islamic Academy, Sinha J.); a reference that was “merely incidental” is not the ratio (Sudhansu Sekhar Misra).
Check that the point was argued and decided. A point not considered passes sub silentio; a consent order and an unreasoned SLP dismissal declare no law (Gurnam Kaur; Kunhayammed).
Check the court and the bench strength. Who decided it determines whom it binds (Article 141; Article 227; Dawoodi Bohra).
Compare the facts of your case. If a material fact is different, the earlier decision may be distinguished.

A related maxim on pending cases is explained in our post on sub judice, and the courts’ power to strike down laws in judicial review in India.

रेशियो डेसिडेंडी का अर्थ हिंदी में (Ratio Decidendi – Meaning in Hindi)

रेशियो डेसिडेंडी (ratio decidendi) लैटिन शब्द है, जिसका सीधा अर्थ है “निर्णय का कारण”। कानून में इसका मतलब है वह कानूनी सिद्धांत, जिसके आधार पर अदालत ने किसी मुकदमे का फैसला किया। फैसले का यही हिस्सा आगे आने वाले मामलों में दूसरी अदालतों पर बाध्यकारी होता है। ध्यान दें: “निर्णय का आधार” या “निर्णय का कारण” हमारा सरल हिंदी अनुवाद है; इस शब्द का कोई आधिकारिक हिंदी पर्याय हमें किसी सरकारी पाठ में नहीं मिला।

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया बनाम धनवंती देवी (1996) में कहा कि किसी जज के फैसले में पक्षकारों पर बाध्यकारी चीज़ केवल वह सिद्धांत है, जिस पर मामला तय हुआ। हर फैसले के तीन हिस्से होते हैं – तथ्यों पर निष्कर्ष, उन तथ्यों पर लागू होने वाले कानूनी सिद्धांत, और इन दोनों के आधार पर दिया गया निर्णय। रेशियो दूसरे हिस्से में मिलता है। स्टेट ऑफ ओडिशा बनाम सुधांशु शेखर मिश्रा (1967) में पाँच जजों की पीठ ने कहा कि कोई निर्णय केवल उसी बात के लिए नज़ीर (authority) है, जो उसमें वास्तव में तय की गई।

ओबिटर डिक्टा (obiter dicta) फैसले की वे बातें हैं, जो मामला तय करने के लिए ज़रूरी नहीं थीं – जैसे प्रसंगवश की गई टिप्पणी या ऐसे प्रश्न पर राय, जिसे तय करना ज़रूरी नहीं था। गुरनाम कौर (1988) में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि ऐसी बातें आधिकारिक (authoritative) नहीं मानी जातीं। लेकिन पाँच जजों की पीठ ने सरवन सिंह लांबा (1995) में कहा कि सामान्यतः सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ओबिटर डिक्टम का भी पालन और अनुसरण किया जाना अपेक्षित है।

अनुच्छेद 141: संविधान के आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ में अनुच्छेद 141 इस प्रकार है: “उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा घोषित विधि भारत के राज्यक्षेत्र के भीतर सभी न्यायालयों पर आबद्धकर होगी ।” यानी सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले का रेशियो (घोषित विधि) देश की सभी अदालतों पर बाध्यकारी (आबद्धकर) है। हाई कोर्ट का घोषित कानून उन अधीनस्थ अदालतों, अधिकरणों और प्राधिकारियों पर बाध्यकारी है, जो अनुच्छेद 227 के तहत उसके अधीक्षण में हैं (ईस्ट इंडिया कमर्शियल कंपनी, 1962, बहुमत का निर्णय)।

कब बाध्यकारी नहीं: कुन्हयम्मद (2000) के अनुसार बिना कारण बताए खारिज की गई विशेष अनुमति याचिका (SLP) से कोई कानून घोषित नहीं होता; कारण बताए गए हों तो उनमें कही गई कानूनी बात अनुच्छेद 141 के तहत घोषित विधि है। पक्षकारों की सहमति से दिया गया आदेश भी कोई सिद्धांत तय नहीं करता। “पर इनक्यूरियम” (per incuriam) वह निर्णय है, जो किसी बाध्यकारी फैसले या कानून की जानकारी के बिना दिया गया हो; “सब साइलेंशियो” (sub silentio) वह बिंदु है, जिस पर अदालत ने विचार ही नहीं किया। सुप्रीम कोर्ट में बड़ी पीठ का फैसला छोटी या बराबर की पीठ पर बाध्यकारी है; छोटी पीठ को संदेह हो तो वह मुख्य न्यायाधीश से बड़ी पीठ के सामने मामला रखने का अनुरोध कर सकती है (दाऊदी बोहरा, 2004)।

रेशियो कैसे पहचानें: पूरा फैसला पढ़ें; देखें कि मुकदमे के मुख्य तथ्य क्या थे और कौन-सा प्रश्न तय करना था; फिर वह कानूनी नियम खोजें, जिससे उस प्रश्न का उत्तर दिया गया। अंतिम राहत (जैसे अपील मंज़ूर) और प्रसंगवश की गई टिप्पणियाँ रेशियो नहीं हैं। अगर आपके मामले का कोई महत्वपूर्ण तथ्य अलग है, तो पुराने फैसले को अलग (distinguish) किया जा सकता है।

Frequently asked questions

What is the meaning of ratio decidendi?

Ratio decidendi (Latin for “the reason for deciding”) is the principle of law on which a court decides a case, and it is the part of a judgment that binds later courts. The Supreme Court of India has said that “The only thing in a Judge’s decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided” (Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi, 1996). Remarks that were not needed for the decision are obiter dicta.

What does “ratio” mean in law, and what is the ratio of a case?

In law, “the ratio” is short for ratio decidendi. The ratio of a case is the rule of law the court applied to the material facts to answer the question it had to decide. In Dhanwanti Devi (1996) the Supreme Court called it “the rule deductible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of the case”. It is not the same as the result of the case or its facts.

What is the difference between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta?

The ratio decidendi is the principle on which the case was actually decided and it binds later courts as a precedent. Obiter dicta are remarks that were not necessary for the decision, such as passing comments or views on questions not in issue. The Supreme Court said in MCD v. Gurnam Kaur (1988) that statements which are not part of the ratio “are distinguished as obiter dicta and are not authoritative”.

Is the obiter dicta of the Supreme Court binding on High Courts?

It is not binding in the same way as the ratio, but it should normally be followed. In Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Hazara Singh (1975) the Supreme Court approved a statement that “even obiter dictum of the Supreme Court should be accepted as binding”, while noting that statements on matters other than law have no binding force. A five-judge bench said in Sarwan Singh Lamba v. Union of India (1995): “Normally even an obiter dictum is expected to be obeyed and followed.”

What is ratio decidendi in Hindi?

In simple Hindi, ratio decidendi means “निर्णय का कारण” or “निर्णय का आधार” – the legal principle on which a court decided the case. This is a plain translation; we did not find an official Hindi term for it. The related official Hindi words in Article 141 of the Constitution are “घोषित विधि” (law declared) and “आबद्धकर” (binding).

What is an example of ratio decidendi?

In Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Hazara Singh (1975) the Supreme Court explained an earlier milk-adulteration case. Its ratio was that the High Court’s revisional power is reserved for correcting a miscarriage of justice and is not for private prosecutors. A remark in that case about a “microscopic” shortfall in the milk sample was only made “to drive home the point” and was not the ratio, so a later court could not build a defence on it.

How do you find the ratio decidendi of a judgment?

Read the whole judgment, identify the material facts and the question the court had to decide, and find the rule of law that answered it. Leave out the final relief and passing remarks. The Supreme Court has said the ratio “has to be found out only on reading the entire Judgment” (Islamic Academy of Education, 2003) and that it is “always necessary to see what were the facts in the case” and “what was the point which had to be decided” (Dhanwanti Devi, 1996).

How are ratio decidendi and Article 141 connected?

Article 141 of the Constitution says: “The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.” The “law declared” is the principle the Supreme Court laid down, that is, its ratio. In Dhanwanti Devi (1996) the Court said: “It is only the principle laid down in the judgment that is binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution.”

Is a High Court judgment binding on other High Courts?

No. Only the law declared by the Supreme Court binds all courts in India (Article 141). A High Court’s law binds the subordinate courts, tribunals and authorities under its own superintendence under Article 227, as the majority of the Supreme Court held in East India Commercial Co. v. Collector of Customs (1962, two judges to one). Courts outside its territory are not under that superintendence, and no provision makes its decisions binding on them, although they may be cited and their reasoning considered.

Is the dismissal of an SLP a binding precedent?

A dismissal without reasons is not: in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) the Supreme Court held that it is not a declaration of law under Article 141 “for there is no law which has been declared”. If the dismissal order gives reasons, the statement of law in it is a declaration of law under Article 141, and its other findings bind the parties and the court below. In neither case does the High Court’s order merge in the Supreme Court’s order.

What does “distinguishing” a precedent mean?

It means showing that the material facts or the question in the present case differ from those on which the earlier ratio was based, so the earlier rule does not apply, without saying that the earlier decision was wrong. The Supreme Court has said that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved (Dhanwanti Devi, 1996) and that “one additional or different fact may make a world of difference” (as quoted in Islamic Academy of Education, 2003).

What is a per incuriam decision?

A decision per incuriam is one given in ignorance of a binding earlier decision or of a statute or rule having the force of law, as the Supreme Court explained in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra (2004). Such a decision is not a binding authority on that point (see MCD v. Gurnam Kaur, 1988). But a ruling that specifically refers to the earlier binding precedent “cannot be said to be per incuriam”, even if it may be wrong.

What does sub silentio mean in precedent?

A point passes sub silentio when it was logically involved in a decision but was not argued or considered by the court. In MCD v. Gurnam Kaur (1988) the Supreme Court adopted this meaning: the point “is not perceived by the court or present to its mind”, so the decision is not an authority on it. The Court added: “Precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment.”

Does a smaller bench of the Supreme Court have to follow a larger bench?

Yes. In Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community (2004) a five-judge bench held that the law laid down by a larger bench “is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength”. A smaller bench that doubts it can only request the Chief Justice to place the matter before a larger bench. A bench of equal strength may doubt an earlier decision and then the matter goes to a larger bench.

Conclusion

The ratio decidendi is the principle of law on which a case was decided, read with the facts it was applied to. It is what makes a judgment a precedent: the Supreme Court’s ratio is “law declared” under Article 141 and binds every court in India, and a High Court’s ratio binds the subordinate courts and tribunals under its superintendence. Obiter dicta do not bind in the same way, though the Supreme Court’s considered observations on law are normally followed. To use a judgment correctly, read it in full, identify the question it decided and the rule that answered it, and check whether the facts of your case are the same.

Sources used for this post: the Constitution of India, Articles 141, 145(3) and 227 (Legislative Department, The Constitution of India, English edition as on 10 September 2026, https://www.legislative.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/07/95ef471035ee0b5e4e5b1cac3d3584c1.pdf; official Hindi text of Article 141 from the Diglot (Hindi and English) edition, https://www.legislative.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/08/575648bd8ecb7654db902b93115d35e4.pdf; and the India Code text); and the Supreme Court’s own copies of State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra (five judges, 7 November 1967, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/2244.pdf), I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (eleven judges, 27 February 1967, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/2449.pdf), East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta (4 May 1962, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/3814.pdf), Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Hazara Singh (12 March 1975, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/6021.pdf), Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur (12 September 1988, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/8194.pdf), Sarwan Singh Lamba v. Union of India (five judges, 12 May 1995, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/10738.pdf), Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi (21 August 1996, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/15249.pdf), Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (19 July 2000, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/16304.pdf), Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka (14 August 2003, majority https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/19336.pdf and opinion of S.B. Sinha J. https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/19326.pdf, quoting Padma Sundara Rao v. State of T.N. (2002) and Rajeswar Prasad Mishra v. State of West Bengal (1965)) and Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra (five judges, 17 December 2004, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/26676.pdf).