Whether findings of facts given by court or judgment on concession is binding as precedent?

So far as the first question is concerned, Article 141 of the Constitution unequivocally indicates that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. The aforesaid Article empowers the Supreme Court to declare the law. It is, therefore, an essential function of the Court to interpret a legislation. The statements of the Court on matters other than law like facts may have no binding force as the facts of two cases may not be similar. But what is binding is the ratio of the decision and not any finding of facts. It is the principle found out upon a reading of a judgment as a whole, in the light of the questions before the Court that forms the ratio and not any particular word or sentence. To determine whether a decision has ‘declared law’ it cannot be said to be a law when a point is disposed of on concession and what is binding is the principle underlying a decision. A judgment of the Court has to be read in the context of questions which arose for consideration in the case in which the judgment was delivered. An ‘obiter dictum’ as distinguished from a ratio decidendi is an observation by Court on a legal question suggested in a case before it but not arising in such manner as to require a decision. Such an obiter may not have a binding precedent as the observation was unnecessary for the decision pronounced, but even though an obiter may not have a bind effect as a precedent, but it cannot be denied that it is of considerable weight. The law which will be binding under Article 141 would, therefore, extend to all observations of points raised and decided by the Court in a given case. So far as constitutional matters are concerned, it is a practice of the Court not to make any pronouncement on points not directly raised for its decision. The decision in a judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be assailed on the ground that certain aspects were not considered or the relevant provisions were not brought to the notice of the Court (see AIR 1970 SC 1002 and AIR 1973 SC 794).

Supreme Court of India
Dir. Of Settlements, A.P. & Ors vs M.R. Apparao & Anr on 20 March, 2002

Leave a Reply

LexCliq

Forskellig behandling af søvnforstyrrelser for dine helbredsmæssige fordele

Der er i øjeblikket ingen sølvkugle til behandling af søvnproblemer. Du skal evalueres og diagnosticeres med et søvnproblem for at modtage passende behandling. Du kan hjælpe din læges diagnose ved at holde nøje styr på dine symptomer og enhver anden information, der kan være nyttig. At ændre ens søvnplan eller de omkringliggende omgivelser kan være […]

Read More
LexCliq

Why You Need To Get Eye Exams

My friend damaged her eyes through your UV rays under a sun lamp fixture. She was blind for two weeks and couldn’t work. It drove her crazy contains this day her vision is poor wearing junctions. Although it’s not proven the sun lamp caused it, sunglasses the interest doctor gave the impression to think it […]

Read More
LexCliq

Quick Ways To Spot Cheap Sunglasses

Maybe really want a clear examples . certain feature from your google, like removable lenses, or lenses that can change colour to suit the associated with sun. Perhaps you want your shades to become able to face up to you falling your mountain bike, or need in order to become comfy enough to wear whilst […]

Read More