Introduction:
The settled law that obiter dicta are not binding can be found discussed in the Supreme Court's judgment in Property Owners Association vs. State of Maharashtra (2024), particularly in its analysis of prior rulings like Sanjeev Coke and Ranganatha Reddy. The Court clarified that observations in a judgment which are not part of the ratio decidendi — i.e., not necessary for the decision of the case — do not have binding precedential value.
The Issue of Obiter Dictum:
The issue of obiter dictum arose prominently in the context of the respondents’ reliance on Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1997) 5 SCC 536, a decision by a nine-judge bench. In Mafatlal, Justice Jeevan Reddy, speaking for the majority, observed that "the material resources of the community are not confined to public resources but include all resources, natural and man-made, public, and private owned." This statement was cited to support the expansive interpretation of Article 39(b) adopted in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1977) 4 SCC 471 and Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (1983) 1 SCC 147, which included privately owned resources within the ambit of "material resources of the community." The appellants challenged the authority of this observation, arguing that it was obiter dictum, as it was not central to the ratio decidendi of Mafatlal, a case primarily concerned with excise duties rather than property rights or Article 39(b). The respondents countered that the observation, made by a nine-judge bench, carried significant weight and reinforced the settled interpretation of Article 39(b), aligning with the Court’s consistent jurisprudence.
Obiter dictum, as a legal concept, refers to remarks or observations made by a judge that are incidental to the main issue being decided and thus lack binding precedent. Unlike the ratio decidendi—the core reasoning that resolves the case—obiter dicta are persuasive at best, their authority depending on the context, the bench’s composition, and their alignment with established law. In this case, the Supreme Court meticulously examined the Mafatlal observation to determine its legal status. The appellants argued that since Mafatlal did not directly address a challenge to the acquisition of private property under Article 39(b), the remark on material resources was extraneous to the case’s core issue. They contended that endorsing this observation as binding would improperly elevate a passing comment to the status of precedent, especially given its reliance on Ranganatha Reddy’s minority opinion and Sanjeev Coke, which they argued required reconsideration.
The respondents, represented by the Solicitor General, urged the Court to view the Mafatlal observation as authoritative, given the nine-judge bench’s stature and its reference to a line of cases, including Ranganatha Reddy and Sanjeev Coke. They argued that the observation was not merely incidental but reflected a deliberate affirmation of the broad interpretation of Article 39(b), consistent with the Court’s jurisprudence on directive principles. The respondents emphasized that the Court’s repeated endorsements of this interpretation in cases like State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Abu Kavur Bai (1984) 1 SCC 515 and National Textile Corp Ltd. v. Sitaram Mills Ltd. (1986) AIR SC 1234 lent credence to the Mafatlal statement, diminishing any claim that it was obiter dictum.
Chief Justice delivering the judgment, addressed the obiter dictum issue with precision. The Court acknowledged that the Mafatlal observation was made in a context unrelated to the acquisition of private property, as the case dealt with excise duty disputes. Consequently, it classified the remark as obiter dictum, noting that it did not form part of the ratio decidendi necessary to resolve the dispute in Mafatlal. However, the Court did not dismiss its persuasive value outright. It recognized that the observation, emanating from a nine-judge bench, carried significant weight, particularly as it aligned with the expansive interpretation of Article 39(b) in Sanjeev Coke, a five-judge bench decision that adopted the minority view of Justice Krishna Iyer in Ranganatha Reddy. The Court reasoned that while the Mafatlal statement was not binding, its consistency with prior and subsequent judicial interpretations bolstered the argument for including private resources in Article 39(b).
The Court’s analysis extended to the broader context of judicial discipline and precedent. It critiqued the appellants’ reliance on the majority opinion in Ranganatha Reddy, which avoided engaging with Article 39(b), to challenge Sanjeev Coke. The Court clarified that Sanjeev Coke’s adoption of the minority view was a deliberate choice by a five-judge bench, rendering it binding unless overruled by a larger bench. The Mafatlal observation, though obiter, was seen as reinforcing this binding precedent, as it cited Ranganatha Reddy and Sanjeev Coke approvingly. The Court also referenced Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 2 SCC 673, which emphasized that a smaller bench is bound by a larger bench’s decision, underscoring that Sanjeev Coke’s interpretation held sway over any contrary implications from Ranganatha Reddy’s majority.
The reasoning on obiter dictum was further informed by the Court’s commitment to constitutional coherence. The Court noted that directive principles, such as Article 39(b), are integral to the Constitution’s social justice framework, as evidenced by Constituent Assembly debates advocating equitable resource distribution. The Mafatlal observation, while not binding, resonated with this ethos, particularly in light of India’s persistent socio-economic inequalities, as highlighted by the country’s rankings on the Human Development Index and Global Hunger Index. The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that the Mafatlal remark endorsed a specific economic ideology, clarifying that Article 39(b)’s broad language allows legislative flexibility, subject to judicial review for nexus with the common good.
The implications of classifying the Mafatlal observation as obiter dictum were significant. By doing so, the Court preserved the binding authority of Sanjeev Coke while acknowledging the persuasive influence of Mafatlal. This approach maintained judicial flexibility, allowing future benches to reassess the scope of Article 39(b) without being constrained by a non-binding remark. However, the Court’s endorsement of Sanjeev Coke’s interpretation ensured continuity in the law, affirming that privately owned resources could be considered "material resources of the community" when their distribution serves the public interest. The decision underscored the judiciary’s role in balancing the persuasive weight of obiter dicta with the binding force of precedent, particularly in constitutional matters where historical and social contexts are paramount.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s treatment of obiter dictum in Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra illuminated the nuanced interplay between binding and persuasive judicial statements. By classifying the Mafatlal observation as obiter dictum, the Court upheld the authority of Sanjeev Coke while recognizing the persuasive value of a nine-judge bench’s remarks. This analysis not only clarified the legal status of prior observations but also reinforced the Constitution’s dynamic interpretation, ensuring that directive principles like Article 39(b) remain responsive to India’s evolving socio-economic landscape.
The Highlight of case:
Here’s the specific holding:
“The single-line observation in Mafatlal is obiter dicta” and therefore not binding precedent. Furthermore, the Court noted that Sanjeev Coke erred in relying on the minority view in Ranganatha Reddy, which itself was not endorsed by the majority and thus did not constitute the binding ratio.
This establishes that only the reasoning necessary for the decision (ratio decidendi) is binding, while obiter dicta are merely persuasive at best.
Thus, the settled law is:
Obiter dicta, even if made by a coordinate or larger bench, do not bind subsequent benches unless they form part of the ratio decidendi.
Case Title:Property Owners Association Vs. State of Maharashtra
Date of Order:November 5, 2024
Case No.:Civil Appeal No. 1012 of 2002 and connected matters
Neutral Citation:2024 INSC 835
Name of Court:Supreme Court of India
Name of Judge:Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.I., Hrishikesh Roy, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, S.C. Sharma, Augustine George Masih, B.V. Nagarathna, and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
