Ratio of a judgment has to be read in context of facts of case and even a single fact can make a difference-SC 2002

In Padma Sundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu (2002) 3 SCC 533 the Supreme Court held that the ratio of a judgment has to be read in the context of the facts of the case and even a single fact can make a difference.

In para 9 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court held as under:

―9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case, said Lord Morris in British Railways Board v. Herrington. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases.‖

In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. N.R. Vairamani, (2004) 8 SCC 579, the Supreme Court held that a decision cannot be relied on without considering the factual situation.

The Supreme Court observed as under:-

―9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid’s theorems nor as provisions of a statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. 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. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton [1951 AC 737: (1951) 2 All ER 1 (HL)] (AC at p. 761) Lord Mac Dermott observed: (All ER p. 14 C-D) ―The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J., as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge…‖

10. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. [(1970) 2 All ER 294 : 1970 AC 1004 : (1970) 2 WLR 1140 (HL)] (All ER p. 297g-h) Lord Reid said, ―Lord Atkin’s speech … is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances‖. Megarry, J. in Shepherd Homes Ltd. v.Sandham (No. 2) [(1971) 1 WLR 1062 : (1971) 2 All ER 1267] observed: ―One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of Russell, L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament.‖ And, in Herrington v.British Railways Board [(1972) 2 WLR 537 : (1972) 1 All ER 749 (HL)] Lord Morris said: (All ER p. 761c) ―There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or a judgment as though they were words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case.‖

11. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.

12. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus: ―Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive.

* * * 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.‖‖

 


%d bloggers like this: