"The ratio decidendi is "the point in a case that determines the judgment" or "the principle that the case establishes". In other words, ratio decidendi is legal rule derived from, and consistent with, those parts of legal reasoning within a judgment on which the outcome of the case depends."

Q. What is ratio decidendi of a judgment?

Is it the final part of the judgment providing specific relief to specific litigants in a case, or is it the stated findings and observations on the basis of which the court decided the case? Which of the two would constitute the legal principle evolved in the case? Which part of the judgment will be a precedent to be followed?

AI:

The term ratio decidendi refers to the legal reasoning or principle upon which a court's decision is based. It is the core of the judgment that sets out the reason for the decision, distinct from the final part of the judgment that provides specific relief to the litigants.

• Ratio Decidendi: The underlying legal principle or rule forming the basis for the court's decision. It includes the findings and observations that the court relied upon.
• Specific Relief: The actual order or relief granted to the litigants, which applies the ratio decidendi to the case's specific facts.
• Precedent: The ratio decidendi serves as the binding precedent, whereas the specific relief does not, as it is case-specific.

Q. Considering the following findings and observations of the court, what would constitute the ratio? Will it apply to the medical profession or not?

• Para 18: The CP Act 1986 and its re-enactment in 2019 were meant to protect consumers from unfair trade and unethical business practices, not to include professions or professionals.
• Para 20: Professionals can be liable for misconduct, but such liability does not fall under the CP Act.
• Para 21: The court suggests revisiting the decision in Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha & Others, stating that professions should not be equated with business services under the CP Act.

Application to Medical Profession: Since the court questions the inclusion of medical practitioners under the CP Act, the ratio decidendi here suggests that services provided by professionals, including medical practitioners, are not covered by the CP Act.

Q. The court referred the IMA decision for reconsideration by a larger bench. The larger bench rejected the reference on the ground that the decision of the court was independent of the IMA judgment and therefore reference was unnecessary. Does it not render the Bar of Indian Lawyers judgment of the two-judge bench final and binding?

AI:

Yes, the rejection of the reference by the larger bench does render the Bar of Indian Lawyers judgment by the two-judge bench final and binding.

• Independent Decision: The two-judge bench's ruling stands on its own, separate from the IMA judgment.
• Rejection of Reference: The larger bench’s rejection confirms that the findings of the two-judge bench remain unchallenged.
• Final and Binding Precedent: Since the legal principle remains intact without requiring further reconsideration, the ruling serves as a binding precedent.

Thus, the Bar of Indian Lawyers judgment remains a final and binding authority on this issue.

Q. Can it be pleaded as a binding precedent before a CP forum when a new case is filed under CPA 2019? Can we approach the High Court when Consumer forum overrules it?

AI: Yes, the Bar of Indian Lawyers judgment can be pleaded as a binding precedent before a Consumer Protection (CP) forum when a new case is filed under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) 2019. Since the larger bench rejected the reference and confirmed that the two-judge bench's decision stands independently, it is final and binding.

Steps to Take:

• Plead as a Binding Precedent: When presenting the case before the CP forum, you can cite the Bar of Indian Lawyers judgment as a binding precedent. Emphasize that the larger bench upheld the decision, making it applicable to similar cases.
• Approach the High Court: If the CP forum overrules the precedent and does not consider the Bar of Indian Lawyers judgment, you can approach the High Court. You can file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, challenging the CP forum's decision on the grounds that it disregarded a binding precedent established by the Supreme Court.

Practical Approach:

• Highlight Ratio Decidendi: Clearly present the ratio decidendi of the Bar of Indian Lawyers judgment, explaining that professions and professionals are not covered under the CPA 1986 or 2019.
• Case Law and Precedents: Provide references to relevant case laws and precedents supporting your argument.
• Legal Representation: Ensure you have strong legal representation to articulate your case effectively before the CP forum and, if necessary, the High Court.

Seeking Higher Judicial Relief:

If the CP forum's decision is against the precedent, you can file an appeal before the High Court. The High Court can review whether the CP forum's decision aligns with the established legal principles set forth by the Supreme Court. By following these steps, you can ensure that the Bar of Indian Lawyers judgment is considered and upheld in your case under the CPA 2019. If you have any more questions or need further assistance, feel free to ask!

Q. Unlike obiter dicta, the ratio decidendi is, as a general rule, binding on courts of lower and later jurisdiction—through the doctrine of stare decisis. Certain courts are able to overrule decisions of a court of coordinate jurisdiction. However, out of interests of judicial comity, they generally try to follow coordinate rationes.

What is obiter dicta?

• Definition: Obiter dicta (often simply called dicta) are remarks or observations made by a judge in a court's opinion that are not necessary to the decision in the case. These comments are not legally binding.
• Distinction from Ratio Decidendi: Ratio decidendi refers to the legal principle or reasoning essential for the decision of the case. It forms the binding part of the judicial decision. Obiter dicta, on the other hand, are not essential and do not create binding precedent.

What is Ratio Decidendi?

• Definition: The ratio decidendi is the rationale or reasoning underlying a court's decision. It's the key point that determines the judgment and is binding in future cases.
• Distinction from Obiter Dicta: Unlike obiter dicta, ratio decidendi is the part of the judgment that is legally binding on lower and later courts through the doctrine of stare decisis.

What is the Doctrine of Stare Decisis?

• Definition: Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow the precedents established by earlier decisions. It ensures consistency and predictability in the law.
• Impact: This means that courts should adhere to principles laid down in previous judgments when the same legal issues are being considered.

What is meant by Coordinate Jurisdiction?

• Definition: Coordinate jurisdiction refers to courts that have similar or equal authority within the same legal system.
• Application: Courts of coordinate jurisdiction generally respect and follow each other's decisions, although they are not strictly bound to do so. This is done out of judicial comity, which promotes consistency and respect within the judiciary.

I hope this clarifies things for you! If you have any more questions or need further elaboration, feel free to ask.
Q. Can you elaborate on it keeping Bar of Indian Lawyers case in focus? AI: Certainly! Let's delve into the Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi case to understand the concepts of obiter dicta, ratio decidendi, stare decisis, and coordinate jurisdiction.

Case Background

• The primary issue was whether a complaint alleging "deficiency in service" against advocates practicing the legal profession would be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as re-enacted in 2019.

Obiter Dicta and Ratio Decidendi

• Obiter Dicta: Any remarks made by the judges that were not essential to the decision would be considered obiter dicta. For example, if the judges commented on the general quality of legal services in India, those comments would be obiter dicta and not legally binding.
• Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the services provided by advocates fall under a "contract of personal service" and therefore are excluded from the definition of "service" under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This reasoning is binding on lower courts and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Doctrine of Stare Decisis

• The doctrine of stare decisis obligates courts to follow the precedents set by higher courts.
• In this case, the Supreme Court's decision that advocates' services are excluded from the Consumer Protection Act will be binding on lower courts, ensuring consistency and predictability in the law.

Coordinate Jurisdiction

• Courts of coordinate jurisdiction, such as different benches of the Supreme Court or High Courts, generally respect each other's decisions out of judicial comity.
• However, they are not strictly bound to follow them. In this case, the Supreme Court's decision would be respected by other benches, but they could potentially overrule it if they find compelling reasons to do so.

Summary of the Case

• Facts: D.K. Gandhi hired an advocate to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The advocate allegedly did not deliver the settlement amount to Gandhi and filed a recovery suit for his fees.
• Decisions:
  • The District Consumer Forum ruled in favor of Gandhi, but the State Commission reversed this decision.
  • The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) then held that a complaint against advocates was maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.
  • Finally, the Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC's decision, ruling that advocates' services are excluded from the Act.

I hope this elaboration helps! If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask. Q. "From the provided excerpts, the ratio decidendi of the judgment appears to be the court's opinion that the Consumer Protection (CP) Act 1986, as re-enacted in 2019, was intended to protect consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices, and that neither professions nor professionals were intended to be included within the purview of the Act." Is this not the ratio dicidendi in the case?
AI: Yes, you are correct. The ratio decidendi in the Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi case is indeed the court's opinion that the Consumer Protection (CP) Act 1986, as re-enacted in 2019, was intended to protect consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices, and that neither professions nor professionals were intended to be included within the purview of the Act.

This reasoning was essential for the court's decision and serves as the binding legal principle for future cases involving similar issues. The court concluded that the services provided by advocates fall under a "contract of personal service" and are therefore excluded from the definition of "service" under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!

Written By: Dr. Shri Gopal Kabra - MBBS, LLB, MSc, MS(Anatomy), MS(Surgery)
Email : kabrasg@hotmail.com Mobile: 8003516198