This document provides a summary of precedent as a source of law, including ratio decidendi and obiter dictum. It discusses that precedent refers to the reasoning behind a judge's decision that establishes a legal principle that must be followed by lower courts. There are binding precedents from higher courts that must be followed, and persuasive precedents that provide guidance but do not have to be followed. Ratio decidendi refers to the legal principles on which a court's decision is based, while obiter dictum refers to additional non-binding remarks made by the judge.

1. NAME – SHUBHAM RAMCHANDRA PATANKAR
CLASS – NLC 4TH
ROLL NO – 5420
NAME OF TOPIC – PRECEDENT AS SOURCE OF LAW. OBITUR DICTUM AND RATION DECIDENDI.
SUBJECT – JURISPRUDENCE
TEACHER- DR M.S.KHAIRNAR SIR

2. PRECEDENT AS SOURCE OF LAW-
PRECEDENT-
• Precedent is the reasoning behind a judge’s decision that establishes
a principle or rule of law that must be followed by other courts lower
in the same court hierarchy when deciding future cases that are
similar.
• As Defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, "precedent" is a "rule of law
established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case
and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases( Black’s Law
Dictionary P 1059 5th edition 1979

3. • KINDS OF PRECEDENT
• Binding Precedent:
• A binding precedent is a legal principle established in a higher court that must be
followed by lower courts in the same hierarchy when deciding similar or ‘like’ cases.
• eg in Maharashtra a judge of the high Court must follow the decisions of judges in
the Supreme Court.
• IF OR a precedent to be binding on a particular case, the precedent must be:
• From the same hierarchy of courts
• From a superior court-one that is higher in the hierarchy
• The decisions of the Supreme Court (the highest court in INDIA) are binding on all
other Indian courts. However, the Supreme Court is not bound by its own previous
decisions.

4. • Persuasive Precedent Are not binding on courts. They are seen more as ‘convincing’
argument, but one that does not have to be followed because it is not binding. Precedents
considered to be persuasive but not binding.
• The decision of a court in another hierarchy-such as another state or country.
• Ratio decidendi of courts at the same level; for example, highCourt judge would not be
bound by a decision of another highCourt judge
• Ratio decidiendi of inferior (lower) courts in the same hierarchy; for example a high Court
judge would not be bound the decision of a judge in a previous case
• •Obiter dicta statements of a court in the same hierarchy or in another hierarchy.
• Although not binding, persuasive precedents may be seen as a point of reference. They
give an indication of how other judges think the law should be.
• E.g. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
• The British case Donoghue v Stevenson was used as persuasive precedent for the Indian
cases, which established the law of negligence in India.

5. • Ratio Decidendi
• Ratio decidendi is a legal rule derived from, and consistent with, those parts
of legal reasoning within a judgment on which the outcome of the case
depends. It refers to the legal, moral, political and social principles on which a
court's decision rests. It is the rationale for reaching the decision of a case.

6. • Obiter Dictum
• Obiter dicta are additional observations, remarks, and
opinions on other issues made by the judge. These often
explain the court’s rationale in coming to its decision and,
while they may offer guidance in similar matters in the future,
they are not binding. In reading a court’s decision, obiter dicta
may be recognized by such words as “introduced by way of
analogy,” or “by way of illustration.”

7. THANK YOU