Introduction

A Judgment is a court's decision, spelled out in a court order, that adjudicates

a dispute between two parties by determining the rights and obligations of each
party. It is the final decision that decides whether the accused person is
innocent or guilty. It is the expression of opinion of the judges or the
magistrate as per the law after due consideration of evidence and arguments.
The art of composing judgments is not taught; it is acquired by practice and by
study of the models provided in the innumerable volumes of the law reports in
which are recorded the achievements of past masters of the art.

Definitions and Meaning

According to Black's Law Dictionary, a Judgment is “a court’s final
determination of the rights and obligations of the parties in a case. The term
judgment includes an equitable decree and any order from which an appeal
lies.”

English Law defines Judgment as “An opinion delivered by a member of the

appellate committee of the House of Lords; a Law Lord‘s judicial opinion.”

According to Wharton’s law lexicon, Judgment is “a judicial determination

putting an end to the action by any award or redress to one party or discharge
of the other as the case may be.”

Judgment is defined under Sec. 2(9) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as:
Judgment means the statement given by the judge on the ground of a decree or
order.

In law, a judgment, is a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities

of parties in a legal action or proceeding. Judgments also generally provide the
court's explanation of why it has chosen to make a particular court order. A
judgment may require monetary compensation or transfer of property from
one party to another. Judgments can also have non-monetary requirements,
such as instructing one party to perform a service for the other.

Requisites of a Judgment
(a) the time of the pronouncement of a judgment- it shall be dated and
signed by the judge in the open court.

(b) the judgment of small causes- Court may contain only the points for
determination and the decision on such points.

(c) In the case of the judgment of other Courts, the judgment shall contain the
concise statement of the case, the points for determination and the decision on
search points and the reason for such decision.

(d) Decision on each issue must be given separately.

(e) The material evidence on each issue must be set out in each judgment.

(f) The reasons must be recorded for answering all such issued.

If the judgment does not contain all above-mentioned elements such judgments
are invalid.

Classification of Judgments
Judgments may be classified as in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem.

An in personam, or personal, judgment, the type most commonly rendered by

courts, imposes a personal liability or obligation upon a person or group to
some other person or group. This obligation may be to pay a sum of money, to
perform some act, or to refrain from doing so. On the other hand, the judgment
may be for the defendant, negating the plaintiff’s claim for relief.

An in rem judgment imposes no personal liability on anyone but adjudicates

the interests of all persons in a specific thing or property in the custody of the
court or otherwise subject to its jurisdiction.
The designation quasi in rem describes a judgment that affects the interests of
one particular party, rather than all parties, in a thing or property within the
control or jurisdiction of the court. Once a judgment has been rendered, there
are various bars to relitigation by the parties involved on the issues adjudicated.

Types of Judgment
Types of judgments can be distinguished on a number of grounds, including
the procedures the parties must follow to obtain the judgment, the issues the
court will consider before rendering the judgment, and the effect of the
judgment. Judgments that vary from a standard judgment on the merits of a
case include the following:

1. Consent Judgment: also referred to as an "agreed judgment," a

consent judgment is a settlement agreed upon by the parties and
authorized by a judge. Consent judgments are often used in the
regulatory context, particularly in antitrust and environmental cases.
2. Declaratory Judgment: a judgment that determines the rights and
liabilities of the parties without enforcing a judgment or otherwise
requiring the parties to do anything. A declaratory judgment may be
useful where the parties have differing views about their rights and duties
or are wishing to clarify them without seeking any other remedy. Though
a declaratory judgment is not binding, it is expected that the parties will
act in accordance with what the court determines in its judgment.
3. Default Judgment: a judgment rendered in favour of one party based on
the other party's failure to take action. Default judgments are commonly
used where the defendant fails to appear before the court or submit a
defence after being summoned. A default judgment grants the relief
requested by the appearing party and does not require extensive factual
or legal analysis from the court.
4. Interlocutory Judgment: an intermediate or interim judgment
providing a temporary decision on an issue that requires timely action.
Interlocutory orders are not final and may either not be subject to appeal
 or may follow a different appeal procedure than other kinds of
judgments.
5. Reserved Judgment: a judgment that is not given immediately after the
conclusion of the hearing or trial. A reserved judgment may be released
days, weeks, or even months after the hearing.
6. Summary Judgment: an accelerated judgment that does not require a
trial and in which the court's interpretation of the pleadings forms the
basis of the judgment. For a summary judgment, the court will consider
"the contents of the pleadings, the motions, and additional evidence
adduced by the parties to determine whether there is a genuine issue of
material fact rather than one of law."
7. Vacated Judgment: a judgment of an appellate court whereby the
judgment under review is set aside and a new trial is ordered. A vacated
judgment is rendered where the original judgment failed to make an
order in accordance with the law and a new trial is ordered to ensure a
just outcome. The process of vacating a judgment is sometimes referred
to as vacatur.

Components of a Judgment
Various components that often make up a judgment are:
1. Title: The title of the judgment can reveal many aspects of the
case. Firstly, it tells us the names of the parties to the dispute. The
parties can be individuals, corporations, governments, and so on.
Secondly, it indicates which party has filed the plaint/suit or which
is the party that has appealed from the lower courts. Thirdly, it can
also be of assistance in identifying which area of law does the case
deals with. For instance, if the Union or State government is a
party to the dispute, it is quite likely that case is a criminal or
constitutional matter.

2. Citation: The citation indicates to us the location of the judgment

in the case reporter i.e. the page number, volume of the
 publication, and year of the publication. The citation also serves as
an indicator of the court which delivered the judgment.

3. The Bench: The judgment also tells us the number of judges who
heard and decided the matter, as well as their names. The size of
the Bench is particularly important in determining which courts are
bound by the judgment.

4. Description of Parties: The court may describe the parties

involved in the dispute, and which party initiated the legal
proceedings.

5. Facts of the Dispute: This means the material facts which have
led to the dispute. It includes the conduct of the parties, the
incident(s) which led to a conflict between the parties, and so on.

6. Contentions of the Parties: This section contains the arguments by

the parties, which includes the cases and provisions of the law that they
have relied upon. The court may list all the contentions in the beginning
at one go and then deal with them at a subsequent stage. The court may
also deal with each contention by referring to them one by one and
rendering its views on the said contention.
8. The Issue: The issue(s) is the question of law or the mixed
question of fact and law which the court has to decide upon. A
judgment may also discuss the issues framed by the lower courts.

9. Provisions of Statute(s) concerned: The court will also deal with

the applicable legislation in the matter and the provisions of the
legislation which are applicable to the dispute. It may discuss the
scheme of the legislation, its preamble, the verbatim sections,
essential ingredients of the sections, the object of the sections, and
so on.

10. Case law: A judgment discusses other cases within it. The court
 deals with case law relied upon by the parties on each side. It may
also discuss relevant case law on the subject matter, which may not
have been brought up by the parties themselves. The case laws
could be judgments by foreign courts or by Indian courts.

11. Observations and Decisions: This includes the court’s

considerations of the law involved. The court discusses and lays
down the principles of law applicable in that matter. The court may
apply the law to the facts of the dispute and decide the matter. The
matter may also be remanded to the lower court for the decision on
facts in accordance with the law laid down.

12. Ratio Decidendi: This is a very important term in legal parlance.

The ratio decidendi is the binding portion of the judgment. Statements
that are not part of the ratio decidendi do not have the power to bind
other courts. Ratio decidendi is understood as having three possible
meanings:
• The reason for (or of) deciding. However, in this understanding of the
term, even a finding of fact may form the ratio decidendi. For
instance, a judge may state a rule and then decide that the facts do
not fall within it.

• The rule of law is proffered by the judge as to the basis of his decision.

• The rule of law which subsequent courts which deal with the judgment
consider being binding.

• To determine the ratio of a case, it can be useful to search for other

cases in which that case has been discussed.
• 12. Obiter Dicta: The Obiter Dictum is the non-binding portion
of the judgment. For instance, observations by the court on legal
principles which were not necessary for the court to decide upon in
the facts of that case, are generally considered obiter dictum.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Ratio Decidendi ordinarily means the ‘reason for deciding’ the case. In the
judicial context, it is the reason which is cited for arriving at a decision in a
case. Such reason is not the law that is getting attracted in the contemporary
case but is the necessary notion which helps the court arrive at a particular
decision. It is this part of the precedent which has to be followed by the
courts in subsequent decisions but not the general observations of the court.
However, we must not limit our understanding to this and look beyond the
definition. The ‘reason’ here is not -
v The fact of the case.
v The law that the case applies.
v The order of the case
There is a dispute of law involved with respect to the reasoning given by the
judgment and not a dispute of fact. As the facts cannot be similar in other
cases, the observations pertinent to the facts made by the judge cannot be
binding in the other cases though the similar laws are attracted. But the
reasons for arriving at a decision are binding. In case there are multiple
reasons for deciding in a manner, all those reasons will be binding in the
subsequent cases.
3
In the case of B. Shama Rao v. UT of Pondicherry , it was observed that
any of the decisions of a court which is binding as a precedent is not because
of the end result or the order of that decision but based on the reasons and
principles referred to in such a decision. The ratio in deciding a case would
evolve from the interpretation of a statute, principles of natural justice, and
the common law principles. In the case of multiple judges deciding a case,
the reasons cited by the majority of them will have an effect of precedent on
further cases. But if the judges agree with the judgment or order but not with
the ratio for arriving at such a decision, such judgment or order does not carry
an obligation to be followed as a precedent. Though it is difficult to pick a
ratio from a judgment, the primary duty of judges while arriving at a decision
is to determine a ratio, and the court’s duty while citing a case as precedent is
to identify what is the ratio in such a case. Ratio decidendi can be determined
by prioritizing the material facts and leaving the unimportant facts behind.
Another way to identify ratio is to narrow down the precedents which could
be applicable in determining the case. Even in this method, due importance
must be given to the majority opinions and the crux of the cases. Rather than
these general techniques, certain specific tests are laid down by the jurists
such as Halsbury, Wambaugh, Goodhart, and Julius Stone. These tests are
used to this day to correctly determine the ratio of a case.
The concept of Ratio Decidendi can also be further divided into two categories-

a. Descriptive Ratio-: The descriptive ratio is the rationale or the reason

which helped the court to arrive at a decision. It is the original ratio and
is used as an aid in future cases.
b. Prescriptive Ratio-: On the other hand, the prescriptive ratio is the way
in which the descriptive ratio is used as a precedent in a future case. No
case is totally similar to the facts or the law. Due to this reason, there
arises a problem in the application of the principle as it is laid down in a
future case. Hence, the descriptive ratio is slightly altered by using the
level of generality so as to apply it as a prescriptive ratio.

RULES FOR DETERMINING THE RATIO

After a judgment is written, there is a period of discovery that is needed to figure out what the ratio
truly is. This involves deciphering whether it has fallen outside of what constitutes as the ratio and
how narrow or wide the ratio is likely to be or ought to be. Therefore, the following is a list of
rules for what constitutes the ratio decidendi.

1. Must be a necessary step to the Conclusion- 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.
2. Must Be Directly Related to the Issue- It is fundamental to the ascertainment of
the binding rule of a judicial decision that it should be derived from a matter in issue in the
proceedings. Cases are only authorities for what they decide. If a point is not in dispute in
a case, the decision lays down no legal rule concerning that issue.
3. Must Come From Disputes of Law, Not Disputes of Fact- The ratio must be
derived from disputes of law, not disputes of fact. Rations will not come from cases where
the parties only disagree on the facts.
4. Must Be Argued in Court- To constitute as the ratio, it must first be argued in court.
A point of law that will become precedent should have the opportunity to be argued by
both parties in court, or the law will go without the benefit of counter arguments and fine-
tuning.
5. When a Precedent Has Multiple Reasons, All Reasons Are Binding.
6. Ratio can come in different forms- The ratio in deciding a case would evolve from
the interpretation of a statute, principles of natural justice, and the common law principles.
7. The Facts of the Precedent Case Shape the Level of Generality- The facts
of the precedent case shape how narrow or wide the ratio should be applied to future cases.
8. The Court Decides the Level of Generality- Ultimately, it is for the future court
to decide how narrow or wide the precedent ratio ought to be.

TESTS FOR DETERMINING THE RATIO

1. WAMBAUGH’S TEST-: The inversion test propounded by Wambaugh is based on

the assumption that the Ratio decidendi is a general rule without which a case must have
been decided otherwise. Inversion test is in a form of dialogue between him and his student.
He gave following instructions for this;
Ø Frame carefully the supposed proposition of law
Ø Insert in the proposition a word reversing its meaning
 Ø Inquire whether, if the court had conceived this new proposition to be good and had
it in mind, the decision could be the same. If the answer is affirmative, the however
excellent the Original proposition may be, the case is not a precedent for that
proposition.
Ø But if the answer is negative, the case is a precedent for the original proposition
and possibly for other proposition also.
Thus, when case turns on one point the proposition or doctrine of the case, the reason for the
decision, the ratio decidendi, must be a general rule without which the case must have been decided
otherwise. A proposition of law which is not ratio decidendi under the above test must, according
to Wambaugh, constitute a mere dictum

According to the Wambaugh test, also known as the reversal test, the proposition of law put
forward by the judge should be reversed or negated and if the reversal would alter tht actual
decision, that proposition is the ratio decidendi of the case.

2. HALSBURY TEST-: The concept of precedent has attained important role in the
administration of justice in modern times. The case before the court should be decided in
accordance with law and the doctrines. The mind of the court should be clearly reflected on
the material in issue with regard to the facts of the case. The reason and spirit of the case
make law and not the letter of a particular precedent.

Halsbury explained the word 'ratio decidendi' as, it may be laid down as general rule that, that part
alone of a decisison by a court of law is binding upon courts of co ordinate jurisdiction and inferior
courts which consists of the enunciation of the reason or principle upon which the question before
the court has really been determined. This underlying principle which forms the only authoritative
element of a precedent is often termed as Ratio Decidendi.

In Halsbury's Laws of England it has been observed that ratio decidendi are the general reasons
given for a decision or the general grounds upon which it is based, detached or abstracted from
specific peculiarities of a particular case which gives the rise to a particular decision.
 3. GOODHART’S TEST-: In 1929, Goodhart had argued that the ratio of the case must
be in the reasons for the decision and there is no necessary connection between the ratio and
the reasons. He laid down following guidelines for discovering the ratio dcidendi of the
case:
Ø Ratio decidendi must not be sought in the reasons of which the judge has passed the
decision.
Ø The reasons given by the judge are of peculiar importance, for they may furnish us with a
guide for determining which facts he considered material and which immaterial.
Ø A decision for which no reasons are given does not necessarily lack ratio, furthermore, the
reasons offered by the court in reading a decision might be considered inadequate or
incorrect, yet the court’s ruling might be endorsed in later cases- a bad reason may often
make good law.

The only drawback of the test is that the test is not in actual use by the judges. In practice the courts
seem to be paying more attention to the judges own formulation of law than that permitted under
the test. Difficulty arises when the court deals with the law without first finding the facts. They
depart from normal situation where rule of law is enunciated and applied to the facts as found. In
these cases facts are assumed and in some the actual facts do not fit into the law as enunciated.
4. AMERICAN REALIST JULIUS STONE TEST-: In illuminating conceptual
vagueness inherent in the notion of ratio decidendi, Professor Stone distinguishes two
version of ratio decidendi namely, prescriptive and descriptive versions. Prescriptively
used, the phrase ratio decidendi refers to a normative judgement requiring the later court to
choose particular ratio decidendi as legally required to be drawn from a prior case i.e. as the
binding ratio decidendi.

Descriptively the phrase imports an explanation of the court's reasoning to its conclusion based
on sociological, historical and even psychological inquiry. And the finding from such an inquiry
is true or untrue as a matter of fact. This may be sought at various levels. The Descriptive Ratio
the rule that the judge who decides the case intended to lay doen and apply to the facts.
Prescriptive Ratio is the rule that a latter court concedes him to have power to lay down. Julius
Stone observes that an automobile in bad repair is not the same thing as opaque bottle containing
dead snail. Yet judicial creativity has made it possible to extend the similar thrust of Donoghue v.
Stevenson to a wide range of differing decisional situations. This means that the scope of the ratio
decidendi of precedent case will frequently will not be determined until further decisions have
been made plotting the limits of the precedent case. This is because each material fact of the
precedent case can be stated a several levels of generality, generating competing versions of ratio
decidendi.

A later court choosing between these versions at the time of its decision is determining what it
regards as prescriptive ratio. Thus entire process from the stage of ascertaining material facts to
final stage of identifying the common holding on the question of law and relating to the said
material facts bristles with fantastic creative possibilities.

OBITER DICTA

Obiter dictum (usually used in the plural, obiter dicta) is the Latin phrase meaning "other things
said", that is, a remark in a legal opinion that is "said in passing" by any judge or arbitrator. It is a
concept derived from English common law, whereby a judgment comprises only two
elements: ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. For the purposes of judicial precedent, ratio decidendi is
binding, whereas obiter dicta are persuasive only.

A judicial statement can be ratio decidendi only if it refers to the crucial facts and law of the case.
Statements that are not crucial, or which refer to hypothetical facts or to unrelated law issues,
are obiter dicta. Obiter dicta are remarks or observations made by a judge that, although included
in the body of the court's opinion, do not form a necessary part of the court's decision. In a court
opinion, obiter dicta include, but are not limited to, words "introduced by way of illustration, or
analogy or argument".[1] Unlike ratio decidendi, obiter dicta are not the subject of the judicial
decision, even if they happen to be correct statements of law. The so-called Wambaugh's Inversion
Test provides that to determine whether a judicial statement is ratio or obiter, you should invert
the argument, that is to say, ask whether the decision would have been different, had the statement
been omitted. If so, the statement is crucial and is ratio; whereas if it is not crucial, it is obiter.

If a court rules that it lacks jurisdiction to hear a case (or dismisses the case on a technicality), but
still goes on to offer opinions on the merits of the case, such opinions may constitute obiter dicta.
Other instances of obiter dicta may occur where a judge makes an aside to provide context for the
opinion, or makes a thorough exploration of a relevant area of law. If a judge, by way of
illumination, provides a hypothetical example, this would be, obiter even if relevant because it
would not be on the facts of the case.

Obiter dictum is defined in the case of Mohandas Issardas v. A.N. Sattanathan1 as the opinion
expressed by the judge in the court or during pronouncement of judgment which does not have
any importance in the decision. This is not an important constituent to arrive at a decision but is
just used to describe the circumstances. They are the incidental remarks made by the court while
dealing with the actual conflict between parties. In the case of Sarwan Singh Lamba v. Union of
India2, the SC observed that in general circumstances, even the obiter dictum mentioned in a
decision of the court is expected to be followed. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s obiter dictum
carries a considerable weightage. But such weightage depends upon the kind of dictum given by
the court. If the dictum is a casual remark by the court, it does have any effect on the parties or the
subsequent cases. In another scenario, certain obiter dicta have recommendatory or persuasive
value but do not bind anyone. Hence, the ratio decidendi is an important constituent of judgment
rather than obiter dicta.

STEPS IN DETERMINING THE OBITER DICTUM

1. Understanding the Legal Issue Involved-: Once we have a clear understanding

of the issues in contention, it will be much easier to see what the different parts of the
judgment are doing. For example, if part of the judgment is resolving the key legal issue

1
AIR 1955 Bom 113, (1954) 56 BOMLR 1156, 1955 CriLJ 423, ILR 1955 Bom 319

2
1995 AIR 1729, 1995 SCC (4) 546
 through reasoning, that is likely to be the ratio. But if the judge suggests an imaginary
scenario using different facts, this will not be the ratio because this digression is not
necessary for the judge to reach their decision (but it may be obiter).

2. Reading the Entire Judgement and not Just a Part-: Sometimes the purpose
of a particular part of the judgment will only become clear once you read it in context with
the other parts. For example, a judge's summary of the existing law (precedent) may look
like the ratio until you read the next part, where the judge says that no existing precedent
clearly applies to the case at hand.

SIGNIFICANCE OF OBITER DICTUM

A judicial statement can be ratio decidendi only if it refers to the crucial facts and law of the case.
Statements that are not crucial, or which refer to hypothetical facts or to unrelated law issues, are
obiter dicta. Obiter dicta (often simply Dicta, or obiter) are remarks or observations made by a
Judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, do not form a necessary part of
the court's decision.

In a court opinion, obiter dicta include, but are not limited to, words "introduced by way of
illustration, or analogy or argument". Unlike ratio decidendi, obiter dicta are not the subject of the
judicial decision, even if they happen to be correct statements of law. The so-called Wambaugh's
Inversion test provides that to determine whether a judicial statement is ratio or obiter, you should
invert the argument, that is to say, ask whether the decision would have been different, had the
statement been omitted. If so, the statement is crucial and is ratio; whereas if it is not crucial, it is
obiter.

In reaching decisions, courts sometimes quote passages of obiter dicta found in the texts of the
opinions from prior cases, with or without acknowledging the quoted passage's status as obiter
dicta. A quoted passage of obiter dicta may become part of the holding or ruling in a subsequent
pg. 8 case, depending on what the latter court actually decided and how that court treated the
principle embodied in the quoted passage.