Obiter dictum (Dicta) - Indian Laws - General

Concept of obiter dictum The expression obiter dicta or dicta has been discussed in American Jurisprudence 2d, Vol. 20, at pg. 437 as thus: 74. Dicta Ordinarily, a court will decide only the questions necessary for determining the particular case presented. But once a court acquires jurisdiction, all material questions are open for its decision; it may properly decided all questions so involved, even though it is not absolutely essential to the result that all should be decided. It may, for instance, determine the question of the constitutionality of a statute, although it is not absolutely necessary to the disposition of the case , if the issue of constitutionality is involved in the suit and its settlement is of public importance. An expression in an opinion which is not necessary to support the decision reached by the court is dictum or obiter dictum. Dictum or obiter dictum: is distinguished from the holding of the court in that the socalled law of the case does not extend to mere dicta, and mere dicta are not binding under the doctrine of stare decisis, As applied to a particular opinion, the question of whether or not a certain part thereof is or is not a mere dictum is sometimes a matter of argument. And while the terms dictum and obiter dictum are generally used synonymously with regard to expressions in an opinion which are not necessary to support the decision, in connection with the doctrine of stare decisis, a distinction has been drawn between mere obiter and judicial dicta, the latter being an expression of opinion on a point deliberately passed upon by the court. 190. Decision on legal point; effect of dictum In applying the doctrine of stare decisis, a distinction is made between a holding and a dictum. Generally stare decisis does not attach to such parts of an opinion of a court which are mere dicta. The reason for distinguishing a dictum from a holding has been said to be that a question actually before the court and decided by it is investigated with care and considered in its full extent, whereas other principles, although considered in their relation to the case decided, are seldom completely investigated as to their possible bearing on other cases. Nevertheless courts have sometimes given dicta the same effect as holdings, particularly where judicial dicta as distinguished from obiter dicta are involved. According to P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Advanced Law Lexicon (3rd ed. 2005), the expression observation means- A view, reflection; remark; statement; observed truth or facts; remarks in speech or writing in reference to something observed. The Wharton s Law Lexicon (14th Ed. 1993) defines term obiter dictum - As an opinion not necessary to a judgment; an observation as to the law made by a judge in the course of a case , but not necessary to its decision, and therefore of no binding effect; often called as obiter dictum, ; a remark by the way. The Blacks Law Dictionary, (9th ed, 2009) defines term obiter dictum - As a judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential (although it may be considered persuasive). - Often shortened to dictum or, less commonly, obiter. Strictly speaking an obiter dictum is a remark made or opinion expressed by a judge, in his decision upon a cause, by the way - that is, incidentally or collaterally, and not directly upon the question before the court; or it is any statement of law enunciated by the judge or court merely by way of illustration, argument, analogy, or suggestion.... In the common speech of lawyers, all such extrajudicial expressions of legal opinion are referred to as dicta, or obiter dicta, these two terms being used interchangeably. The Word and Phrases, Permanent Edition, Vol. 29 defines the expression obiter dicta or dicta thus: Dicta are opinions of a judge which do not embody the resolution or determination of the court, and made without argument or full consideration of the point, are not the professed deliberate determinations of the judge himself; obiter dicta are opinions uttered by the way, not upon the point or question pending, as if turning aside for the time from the main topic of the case to collateral subjects; It is mere observation by a judge on a legal question suggested by the case before him, but not arising in such a manner as to require decision by him; Obiter dictum is made as argument or illustration, as pertinent to other cases as to the one on hand, and which may enlighten or convince, but which in no sense are a part of the judgment in the particular issue, not binding as a precedent, but entitled to receive the respect due to the opinion of the judge who utters them; Discussion in an opinion of principles of law which are not pertinent, relevant, or essential to determination of issues before court is obiter dictum The concept of Dicta has also been considered in Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 21, at pg. 309-12 as thus: 190. Dicta a. In General A Dictum is an opinion expressed by a court, but which, not being necessarily involved in the case , lacks the force of an adjudication; an opinion expressed by a judge on a point not necessarily arising in the case ; a statement or holding in an opinion not responsive to any issue and noty necessary to the decision of the case ; an opinion expressed on a point in which the judicial mind is not directed to the precise question necessary to be determined to fix the rights of the parties; or an opinion of a judge which does not embody the resolution or determination of the court, and made without argument, or full consideration of the point, not the professed deliberate determination of the judge himself. The term dictum is generally used as an abbreviation of obiter dictum which means a remark or opinion uttered by the way. Such an expression or opinion, as a general rule, is not binding as authority or precedent within the stare decisis rule, even on courts inferior to the court from which such expression emanated, no matter how often it may be repeated. This general rule is particularly applicable where there are prior decisions to the contrary of the statement regarded as dictum; where the statement is declared, on rehearing, to be dictum; where the dictum is on a question which the court expressly states that it does not decide; or where it is contrary to statute and would produce an inequitable result. It has also been held that a dictum is not the law of the case , nor res judicata. The concept of Dicta has been discussed in Halsbury s Laws of England, Fourth Edition (Reissue), Vol. 26, para. 574 as thus: 574. Dicta. Statements which are not necessary to the decision, which go beyond the occasion and lay down a rule that it is unnecessary for the purpose in hand are generally termed dicta . They have no binding authority on another court, although they may have some persuasive efficacy. Mere passing remarks of a judge are known as obiter dicta , whilst considered enunciations of the judge s opinion on a point not arising for decision, and so not part of the ratio decidendi, have been termed judicial dicta . A third type of dictum may consist in a statement by a judge as to what has been done in other cases which have not been reported. Practice notes, being directions given without argument, do not have binding judicial effect. Interlocutory observations by members of a court during argument, while of persuasive weight, are not judicial pronouncements and do not decide anything. ARUN KUMAR AGGARWAL VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ORS.- 2011 (9) TMI 951 - SUPREME COURT An obiter dictum has been understood to be an observation by the Court on a legal question which arose before the Court in the case before it, but not in a manner to necessarily require a decision. It may constitute the opinion or viewpoint of a Judge which is not necessary for the final determination of the issue. As a general rule, statements that do not constitute the ratio of a decision are considered to constitute obiter dictum. Judicial propriety, dignity and decorum demands that even an obiter dictum, or pronouncements and observations of the Apex Court that do not strictly constitute the ratio of a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India, although not strictly binding, ought to be accepted as binding by courts subordinate to the Supreme Court. DEVAS EMPLOYEES MAURITIUS PVT. LTD.- ( 2023 (3) TMI 839 - DELHI HIGH COURT