Do the observations of constitutional courts that are not necessary for deciding the case form binding precedents for lower courts?
<p>My question concerns the principle that constitutional courts should not decide what is not strictly necessary for deciding the case at hand. What happens if, say the Supreme Court, made well reasoned and detailed (but unduly far-reaching) conclusions about a legal question deciding which was not at all necessary for the case at hand ?</p>
<p>Do these circumstances alone suffice to argue that these conclusions (insofar as they relate to the question which was not before the court) do not form binding precedents when the legal question arises before a High Court in a future case?
I am attaching a pic from the book <em>Constitutional Law of India</em> Vol-II by H.M. Seervai.</p>
<p>This question is in context of India, but I would appreciate answers from other jurisdictions as well.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/NKRpK.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/NKRpK.jpg" alt="from page 1675 of the referred book" /></a></p>

<p>India <a href="https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-017-5278?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=(sc.Default)&amp;firstPage=true" rel="nofollow noreferrer">does not have a constitutional court</a>, which is a term usually reserved for a court which has exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional questions and is usually limited to deciding constitutional questions.</p>
<p>India has a (mostly) unitary court system capped by the Supreme Court of India, but its jurisdiction is not limited to constitutional questions, and it is not the only court in India that can interpret and apply the Constitution of India.</p>
<p>When a component of a decision decided by the Supreme Court of India is not necessary for resolution of the case before it, that portion of the decision is called <em>dicta</em> and is not binding precedent although it is still persuasive authority before lower courts as it is a good indication of how the Supreme Court of India would resolve a case in future litigation. The same distinction between portions of a ruling that are binding precedents and those that are mere dicta also applies in all other appellate courts in a common law legal system such as India's.</p>
<p>Also, a portion of a court decision is not <em>dicta</em> merely because it is far reaching. A binding precedent can be broad or narrow in the deciding court's discretion. What makes &quot;dicta&quot; distinct is that it is literally &quot;off topic&quot; and not literally controlled by the potentially broad principles used to decide the case before the Court. What determines whether a part of the ruling is &quot;off topic&quot; is the exact scope of the issue that the court states that it is resolving.</p>
<p>For example, if the Court states that it is resolving the question of &quot;due process in an admiralty case&quot; and remarks on due process in an ordinary non-admiralty case, the later remarks are dicta. But if the court states that it is resolving the question of &quot;due process in a legal proceeding&quot; then the same statement is not dicta.</p>

<p>In the legal practice of the <a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag">united-states</a> and the <a href="/questions/tagged/united-kingdom" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-kingdom&#39;" rel="tag">united-kingdom</a> comments in a court opinion which are not essential to the result reached by the court are not, strictly speaking, binding precedent. Such comments are known as  <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Obiter dicta</em></a>, or just <em>dicta</em> (singular <em>dictum</em>), literally &quot;said by the way&quot;. They are often considered to be  persuasive, particularly if the court or the judge has a high reputation, but they are not binding precedent.  I suspect the same is true in the legal system of India but I am not sure.</p>
<p>This is different from the principle that an appeals court should avoid deciding issues not necessarily presented by a case. That principle  is a standard for what many experts consider good practice by appeals courts, particularly on constitutional issues, but it is not mandatory, and courts do not always follow it.</p>
<p>In particular the US Supreme Court sometimes decides cases on narrow grounds, and sometimes, particularly after several narrow decisions have inclined in the same direction, will make a broad decision on a major point. Such cases as <em>Loving vs Virginia</em>, <em>Brown vs Board of Education</em>, and <em>Barnette vs West Virginia</em> are considered landmark cases in significant part because they declared broad principles, when the cases might have been decided more narrowly. On the other hand, cases such as <em>Dred Scott vs Sandford</em> are remembered negatively for being over-bold <em>and</em> on the wrong side of history.</p>
<p>I am not sure what the traditions of the courts of India are on this matter.</p>

<p>Obiter dicta is a routine matter in the decisions of the superior courts. However, whether the law in India or even the law in the world permit the superior court to issue guidelines is a QUESTION OF LAW. If those guidelines are against the constitution, who has the power or authority to correct the same? It must be noted that the Direction and guidelines are different matters. Guidelines are for taking decisions. Direction are for implementing the decision.
A national debate is necessary on this issue in view of the guidelines issued by the supreme court in 1994 in Madhuri Patil for verification of caste certificates.</p>

india precedent indian-constitutional-law