It is a nice article , written on the issue of ratio decidendi. In summary it can safely assumed that ratio decidendi of the judgments is the reasons and grounds upon which a Judge is passing the order. If some thing ancillary has been discussed by the Judge, then the same is not considered as ratio decidendi of the Judgment. Thanks again for writing such an informative article.
this article is on judicial ratio decidenti but it can be extended to any principles based doctrines - parliament itself is a paradigm so too the office of president of india at Raisina Hill. Application knowledge only helps one in purposive construction of interpretation of constitutions as every constitution (body) is subject some right arrangements of components -
ratio decidenti is not exclusive privilege of the courts only but it can be applied on any principles of constitution that way one has to know what to apply and when then only one can be a good advocate in any activity ; president of india has to be independent not a rubber stamp is the ratio decidenti of that institution of President. if he can't understand how could one can fit into presidentship!
in fact when we read ratio decidenti in the very Articles of the constitution of india - if you read Art 13(1) that prohibits any modification if any done in fundamental rights it is void as far as the new Act contradicts the Art 13 headed fundamental rights and when read with Art 368 the parliament cannot touch the fundamental rights that way in the Minerma Mills v UOI (1980) the constitution bench struck down amendment no 24 and 55. that restored Art 13 - parliament cannot meddle with your fundamental rights that is the ratio decidenti if read with Art 368 r/w Art 13 that way CJI SR Das treated champakan duraiswamy v st of madras (1951) and thus set aside the Madras govt order that is applied similarly on amendments 24 and 55 by Minerva Mills case (1980).
i mean vert Apex court ought to ask itself did it understand what is ratio decidenti in the 1951 case held by full bench headed by Mr S R Das in champakkan duraiswamy v st of Madras (1951) it while upholding the madras high court decision setting aside the govt order of medical and engineering colleges' seats reservation - reservation is inapplicable that was confirmed by the apex court in 1951 - so the Apex court in the last 70 yrs after that 1951 decision is yet to understand what is ratio decidenti which s a stare decis for all apex courts for having violated the basic Art 368 - court constitutional benches nor the parliament can modify Art 368 one needs to know - it is obvious contempt of very constitution of India, is my humble submission.
if we really understand what s 'ratio decidenti' the very Appex court ought itself what is the ratio decidenti in CJI (FB) in champakam Duraiswamy v st of Madras (1951) - obviously very Apex court failed in its reading of Art 368 which bars the parliament not to upset the Part III of the constitution of India - for parliament did abridge the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution of india for all these 70+ yrs - hope you people can understand as Part IV of the Constitution has no powers over Part III of the constitution of India.
True. Ratio decidenti is a tough mechanism when one applies he has to know how the various facts of his case has similarity with that case decided by the hon SC; obviously you are likely to make your ratio decidenti into some obiter dicta to your case but the court will not decide on the obiter unless very relevant even relevant there are several fingers crossed situation is likely, it is wise try to fight your matter based on your case 's facts by simple application of relevant constitution based articles and rightly tested statutes, else you have to keep your fingers crossed.
You need to be
logged in to post comment
You can also submit your article by sending to email@example.com
view more »
Our Network Sites
Join LAWyersclubindia.com and Share your Knowledge. Registered members get a chance to interact at Forum, Ask Query, Comment etc.