Law Declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141

Oral observations are comments, questions or tentative views expressed by judges while hearing arguments. They are not law declared by the Supreme Court because Article 141 attaches binding force to the legal principle authoritatively settled through the Court's adjudicatory decision, not to every courtroom utterance.

Constitutional basis of binding precedent

Under Article 141, the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within India. Article 145(5) links a judgment or opinion of the Court to the concurrence of the majority of judges hearing the case, while permitting a dissenting judgment or opinion.

• The binding element is the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal principle necessary for deciding the case on its material facts.
• A judgment must be read as a whole and in its factual and legal context; an isolated sentence is not automatically a precedent.

Why oral observations lack binding force

Oral remarks commonly arise while judges question counsel, test arguments or explore possible consequences. In Chief Election Commissioner of India v. M.R. Vijayabhaskar (2021), the Supreme Court explained that oral observations are not part of the official judicial record and may not find place in the final judgment or order.

• Such remarks are provisional and may change after full arguments, deliberation and examination of the record.
• They neither state the Court's final reasons nor establish the majority-supported rule needed for a binding precedent.
• A recording, transcript or media report of an oral remark does not convert it into law declared under Article 141.

Distinguishing precedent from other judicial remarks

Even within a written judgment, every observation is not binding. Remarks unnecessary for deciding the dispute are generally obiter dicta rather than the ratio, although they may carry persuasive value; the binding rule is identified from the issue decided and the reasons essential to that decision.