Precedent – Ratio decidendi – Must be understood in the background of the facts of the case – Judgements are not to be read as a statute: Constitution of India.

The judgments rendered by a court are not to be read as statutes. In Union of India vs. Amrit Lal Manchanda and another (2004) 3 SCC 75, it has been stated that observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid’s Theorems nor as provisions of a statute. The observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for Judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes.

Words used in a judgment should be read and understood contextually and are not intended to be read literally. Many a time a judge uses a phrase or expression with the intention of emphasising a point or accentuating a principle or even by way of writing style. Ratio decidendi of a judgment is not to be discerned from a stray word or phrase read in isolation.

In this context the following words of Lord Denning are significant.

“Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches, else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it.”