Also, in Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur,
(1989) 1 SCC 101 at 110, this Court stated:
“11. Pronouncements of law, which are not
part of the ratio decidendi are classed as
obiter dicta and are not authoritative. With all
respect to the learned Judge who passed the
order in Jamna Das case [Writ Petitions Nos.
981-82 of 1984] and to the learned Judge who
agreed with him, we cannot concede that this
Court is bound to follow it. It was delivered
without argument, without reference to the
relevant provisions of the Act conferring
express power on the Municipal Corporation
to direct removal of encroachments from any
public place like pavements or public streets,
and without any citation of authority.
Accordingly, we do not propose to uphold the
decision of the High Court because, it seems
to us that it is wrong in principle and cannot be
justified by the terms of the relevant
provisions. A decision should be treated as
given per incuriam when it is given in
ignorance of the terms of a statute or of a rule
having the force of a statute. So far as the
order shows, no argument was addressed to
the court on the question whether or not any
direction could properly be made compelling
the Municipal Corporation to construct a stall
at the pitching site of a pavement squatter.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
It is clear, therefore, that where a matter is not argued at
all by the respondent, and the judgment is one of
reversal, it would be hazardous to state that the law can
be declared on an ex parte appraisal of the facts and the
law, as demonstrated before the Court by the appellant’s
counsel alone. That apart, where there is a detailed
judgment of the High Court dealing with several
authorities, and it is reversed in a cryptic fashion without
dealing with any of them, the per incuriam doctrine kicks
in, and the judgment loses binding force, because of the
manner in which it deals with the proposition of law in
question. Also, the ratio decidendi of a judgment is the
principle of law adopted having regard to the line of
reasoning of the Judge which alone binds in future cases.
Such principle can only be laid down after a discussion of
the relevant provisions and the case law on the subject. If
only one side is heard and a judgment is reversed,
without any line of reasoning, and certain conclusions
alone are arrived at, without any reference to any case
law, it would be difficult to hold that such a judgment
would be binding upon us and that we would have to
follow it. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that
the judgment in Yasangi Venkateswara Rao (supra)
cannot deter us in our task of laying down the law on the
subject.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 134 OF 2013
JAYANT VERMA Vs UNION OF INDIA
Author: R.F. NARIMAN, J.
Dated: February 16, 2018.
Citation: 2018(4) SCC 743
