One of my clients recently had a case which I am explaining below and if you are stuck in such similar situation, here is what to do.
Note: Due to attorney-client privilege, I cannot disclose complete case details or identify the actual parties involved. However, I am sharing the essential facts and legal approach so that if you find yourself in a similar situation, you can understand the available solutions and legal remedies.
TL;DR: A Supreme Court judgment contains two types of statements — ratio decidendi (the binding reason for the decision) and obiter dicta (non-binding comments made in passing). Only the ratio is legally binding on lower courts. An order's binding portion must be separated from casual observations. The quoted paragraph about mandatory affidavits for dog feeding on campuses is likely ratio decidendi because it sets a specific rule tied directly to the court's final order.
Key Facts of the Case
- A member of a stray dog advocacy group posted an article containing a Supreme Court judge's statement about mandatory liability affidavits for groups feeding stray dogs on institutional campuses.
- Another user claiming to be a Supreme Court lawyer responded that the quoted statement was "obiter dicta" — not legally binding — and that only the actual ratio decidendi of the judgment is binding.
- The original poster questioned whether the quoted paragraph — using mandatory language like "IT SHALL BE MANDATORY" and "FAILURE TO COMPLY would entail suitable action" — was obiter or ratio.
- The cited source from Indian Kanoon was available for verification.
- The primary legal issue involved distinguishing binding precedent from judicial commentary.
- The core question was whether an apparently mandatory directive in a judgment is automatically legally enforceable in all cases.
The Direct Legal Answer
Let's settle this directly. The quoted paragraph — "IT SHALL BE MANDATORY for any such group or body operating within such campuses to expressly undertake such LIABILITY by filing an AFFIDAVIT" — is likely ratio decidendi, not obiter dicta. Here's why.
Ratio decidendi is the principle of law that is necessary for the court's decision — the binding rule that decides the case. Obiter dicta are statements made "by the way" that are not essential to the outcome. The key is whether the statement was necessary to resolve the dispute before the court.
In the quoted text, the court uses the word "MANDATORY" and directly links the rule to consequences — "FAILURE TO COMPLY would entail suitable action." This is not a casual observation. It is an explicit directive tied to the court's framework for resolving the case. However, caution is warranted: even mandatory-sounding language in a judgment may be obiter if it goes beyond what was needed to decide the specific dispute.
And here's the nuance: lower courts are bound only by the ratio. But a Supreme Court order directing specific compliance cannot be dismissed as casually obiter simply because the rule is broad in scope. Each case must be examined individually to determine which parts are essential to the decision.
Is the entire judgment binding?
No. Only the ratio is binding. But when a judge explicitly says "it shall be mandatory," that carries weight. The proper approach is to cite the entire relevant paragraph and argue why it forms the ratio of the case.
Advice in Such Cases
Consult with Lawyer: The very basic and important step to start is talk to Lawyer / advocate. You should not hesitate in paying his consultation fee i.e. might be in range of Rs. 10,000 to 50,000 depends case to case. He is helping you in this situation to come out. He is expert in the domain and can help you explain the procedure which you might have never explored. A good lawyer can get the issues resolved much faster than you think.
When your case involves interpreting Supreme Court precedents — especially distinguishing ratio from obiter — you need an advocate who regularly argues before higher courts. A general practitioner may not appreciate how the binding effect of a precedent changes depending on the specific language used. The procedure of citing, distinguishing, or relying on judgments requires careful analysis. Do not assume a paragraph that sounds mandatory is automatically binding; a skilled lawyer will examine the entire judgment's context.
Always read the full judgment, not just a quoted extract. Online summaries can mislead.
Applicable Sections of Law
This is a civil/legal-principle case, not a criminal matter. The applicable framework here is from constitutional law and the law of precedents under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, which states: "The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India." The distinction between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta has been consistently applied under this provision.
Additionally, the doctrine of stare decisis applies — courts must follow the binding precedent set by higher courts. The relevant rules are found in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which govern how judgments are delivered.
General legal principles include:
- Article 141, Constitution of India — Supreme Court judgments are binding on all courts.
- Doctrine of Precedent — Only the ratio is binding; obiter may be persuasive but is not binding.
- Section 121, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Judicial proceedings and judgments as evidence.
Punishment and Penalties
Not applicable — this is a civil/legal-interpretation case, not a criminal matter involving penalties or imprisonment.
Jurisdiction — Where to File the Case
For cases involving interpretation of Supreme Court precedent, no separate "filing" is typically required — the precedent applies in whatever forum the original dispute is pending. However, if you need to enforce the quoted directive regarding stray dog feeding on campuses, the relevant forum would be the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the institution concerned, by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The police station does not have jurisdiction over this civil/precedential dispute.
If You Are the Victim
- Identify the exact portion of the judgment you rely on — separate ratio from obiter.
- Read the full judgment in its entirety on Indian Kanoon or the Supreme Court website.
- Document how the directive applies to your specific situation — factual similarity matters.
- Consult a Supreme Court lawyer for a formal opinion on whether the statement is binding.
- If you are a student or animal welfare group, file the required affidavit voluntarily to avoid any adverse action.
Documents You Must Keep Ready
- Copy of the full Supreme Court judgment (from Indian Kanoon or SCC Online)
- Any correspondence or orders from the institution regarding dog feeding
- Photographs or evidence showing compliance or non-compliance with the directive
- Affidavits from the animal welfare group, if applicable
- Identity proof of the persons involved (Aadhaar, PAN)
- Legal opinion from a qualified advocate
What Evidence Is Required?
- The full text of the Supreme Court judgment — primary evidence
- Affidavits or statements from parties confirming the context of the dispute
- Any prior orders or notices from the institution concerning stray dog activities
- Correspondence between the animal welfare group and the institution
- Evidence of compliance or non-compliance with the court's directive
- Legal arguments distinguishing or applying the precedent
How Courts Typically Approach Such Cases
Indian courts are very strict about following Supreme Court precedent. When a party cites a judgment, the court first examines whether the cited statement was necessary for the earlier decision (ratio) or was merely an observation (obiter). The court will read the entire judgment, not just the quoted extract. If the statement uses mandatory language and is directly tied to the relief granted, it is almost always treated as ratio. Lower courts cannot disregard a Supreme Court directive simply by labeling it obiter — that would require a High Court or Supreme Court ruling.
Timeline of Legal Process
- Issue of precedent interpretation — usually arises during arguments in a pending case.
- Filing of written submissions citing the judgment — 1-2 weeks to prepare.
- Hearing on the point — court hears arguments on binding effect; can take 1-3 months for listing.
- Oral arguments — typically 20-40 minutes for this point.
- Judgment/Order — pronounced on the same day or reserved; pronounced hearing to judgment: 1-6 months.
- Appeal — if the court incorrectly treats ratio as obiter, a review or appeal can take 6-12 months.
Understanding the Costs
The total cost of a matter like this varies significantly from one case to the next — it depends on the complexity of the dispute, the forum involved, the number of hearings, and the specific facts of your situation. There is no single fixed figure that applies to everyone.
A professional advocate can give you an accurate estimate only after reviewing all your facts and documents in a consultation.
Can the Matter Be Settled Out of Court?
Yes, if the underlying dispute is civil in nature — for example, if an institution and an animal welfare group disagree about feeding stray dogs on campus, they can resolve it through mediation, Lok Adalat, or a mutual agreement. A compromise deed can be executed clarifying the terms of feeding and liability. But the legal interpretation of whether the Supreme Court directive is ratio or obiter cannot be "settled" — that is a question of law that a court must decide. However, parties can agree to comply with the directive voluntarily to avoid litigation.
Common Mistakes People Make
- Relying on a quoted extract without reading the full judgment — a single paragraph can be taken out of context; the entire judgment must be examined.
- Assuming anything from a Supreme Court judge is automatically binding law — not all statements are ratio; some are purely obiter dicta.
- Engaging an advocate who does not regularly handle precedent and constitutional law — this type of matter involves nuanced analysis of when a statement is "necessary for the decision." A general practitioner may confuse ratio with obiter or vice versa, weakening your argument.
- Posting legal arguments on social media forums before consulting a lawyer — this can prejudice your case or create unintended admissions.
- Failing to note the factual similarity between your case and the cited judgment — the binding effect depends on factual similarity, not just the quoted language.
FAQs People Normally Have
What is the difference between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi?
Ratio decidendi is the legal principle that is necessary for the court's decision — the binding rule. Obiter dicta are statements made "by the way" or "in passing" that are not essential to the outcome. Only the ratio is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution.
Can a lower court ignore a Supreme Court statement it considers obiter?
Technically yes — obiter is not binding. But it is risky. If the statement uses mandatory language and is closely tied to the order, the lower court should treat it as ratio. If in doubt, the case should be clarified by the High Court or Supreme Court.
Is the quoted paragraph about affidavits for stray dog feeding legally enforceable?
Yes, likely it is. The Supreme Court used the words "IT SHALL BE MANDATORY" and specified consequences for non-compliance. This appears to be a directive forming part of the ratio, not a casual comment. However, each party would need to show the factual context.
How do I prove that a statement is ratio and not obiter?
You must show that the statement was necessary to decide the case. Read the entire judgment. If removing that paragraph would change the outcome, it is ratio. If the court could have reached the same result without that statement, it is likely obiter.
Can the same judgment contain both ratio and obiter?
Absolutely. Most Supreme Court judgments contain both. The key is to identify which parts are essential to the decision. A skilled advocate will parse the judgment carefully to distinguish the two.
This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate about your specific situation.
Advocate Sudhir Rao, Supreme Court of India