Technically, apart from the findings of material facts a decision can flow from two basis one ratio decidendi and the other being obiter dicta. Ratio decidendi of a judgment may be defined as the principles of law formulated by the Judge for the purpose of deciding the problem before him whereas obiter dicta means observations made by the Judge, but are not essential for the decision reached. It is a latin phrase meaning something said by the way or incidentally. Obiter presumably unnecessary to the decision, may be an expression of a viewpoint or sentiments which has no binding effect.
The Apex Court in the case of Arum Kumar Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2011 SC 3056) held that obiter dicta is a mere observation or remark made by the Court, by way of aid, while deciding the actual issue before it. The mere casual statement or observation “which is not relevant, pertinent or essential to decide the issue in hand”, the Court said, did not form the part of the judgment of the court and had no authorities value.
At times while referring to certain hypothetical questions or some observations made on the broader aspect of law by the Judge or certain questions of facts which the judges or the other side counsel may think has not arisen may be referred discussed and stated in the Courtroom. In such a scenario not all can form the essence or the ratio decidendi of the judgment. Thus every passing expression of a Judge, however eminent or a casual remark made while deviating from answering the actual issues pending before the Court cannot be treated, as ex cathedra statement, having the weight of an authority.
In the case of Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union Of India (AIR 1971 SC 530) the Apex Court while stating about the relevancy of obiter dicta held that it is difficult to regard a word, clause or an expression occurring in a judgment as the full exposition of law even if it is not answering the direc t questions of law to the case in hand.
Thus it can be well concluded by mentioning that obiter dictum is an opinion not necessary to a judgment and is 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 it is a ‘remark by the way’. It is the ratio decidendi which has the binding effect and the precedent value.
