Skip to main content



Obiter dictum  phrase meaning “that which is said in passing,” an incidental statement. Specifically, in law, it  refers to a passage in a judicial opinion which is not necessary for the decision of the case before the court.  Obiter dicta an important element of a judgement is not material to the final decisions of the case, however these remarks are respected and tend to carry significant weightage and value in future cases and acts as a guide to the judges. Over the span of judgment a judge

may mention objective facts not absolutely pertinent to decide the issue.. These obiter dicta are useful to excuse law just to propose answers for issues not yet chosen by the Court. For instance the right to live in a pollution free environment, there is a bench of three judges and two agree that right to live in a pollution free  should be included in in article 21 and one judge gives his reasons which is different from the other two judges, although it hardly matter to the decision of the court.

For instance the most relevant case that highlights the relevance of obiter dicta and how it was beneficial to other future cases in order to pronounce their verdict was the of  case  Kasturilal here the appellant Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain, was taken into custody for suspicion of possessing stolen property, he later was released from jail, the police returned the silver but the gold was not returned. Ralia Ram made repeated requests for its returns but was unsuccessful, therefore he went on to file a suit against the respondent(the police officers) and demanded that the god was returned or its value be pained with interest. The constable who took the gold has run away to Pakistan and the police department claimed that they could not be held liable. The mains issues of the case was whether the police offers in question guilty as they failed to take care of the gold in custody, was the respondent liable to compensate the applicant for the loss due to negligence of public servants employed by the state and whether the tort of negligence committed by a public servant in discharge of his statutory function be categorised under sovereign powers and held liable? However the court decided that the police officers in the exercise of their sovereign powers were allowed to arrest a person, search him and seize his property. The court also added that the although it was negligent on the part of the respondents’ employee but the employee himself was

discharging his sovereign powers.Hence, The state was held to be not liable. 

 Justice Gajendargatkar cited the obiter dicta for this case , expressed his dissatisfaction by stating that "Our only point in mentioning the Act is to indicate that the doctrine of immunity, which has been borrowed in India in dealing with the question of the immunity of the state in regard to claims made against it for tortious acts committed by its servant, was really based on the Common Law principle which has now been substantially modified by the Crown Proceedings Act. In dealing with the present appeal we have ourselves been disturbed by the thought that a citizen whose property was seized by the process of law, has to be told when he seeks the remedy in a court of law on the ground that his property has not been returned to him, that he can make no claim against the State. That, we think, is not a very satisfactory position in Law. The remedy to cure this position, however, lies in the hands of the legislation”. 

Subsequent to this judgement  a report on the ‘Liability of State in Tort’  the law commission of India recommended a legislation prescribing state liability and on this basis the “The Government (Liability in Tort) Bill 1967” was introduced in the Lok Sabha, although it has not been passed, the bill aims at holding the state liable for the negligence of its servants, agents and individual contractors employed by it. The Kasturilal case is a precedent case that is referred to by many judges to decide present day issues on matters relating to state liability.  Subsequent judgement’s like the Bhim Singh case where the the court granted compensation to the appellant as he was prevented from attending the assembly session and the Rudra Shah case where court granted compensation for the delay in release from prison.


Popular posts from this blog

60 Minute Marriage Counselling Session On Phone

Description A 60 minute phone call with an expert Marriage\Relationship Counselor to discuss your marriage\relationship related issues. Counselling aims to resolve issues and improve communication in a relationship. Couples’ counselling works with both people in the relationship, however sessions can start with one individual, working towards the involvement of the other partner. What's Included a) 60 minute phone call with the counselor where you can discuss all your issues and seek guidance. What's Not Included a) Counselling session via meeting

INCOME TAX SECTION 32AD - Investment in new plant or machinery in notified backward areas in certain States

 Description (1) Where an assessee, sets up an undertaking or enterprise for manufacture or production of any article or thing, on or after the 1st day of April, 2015 in any backward area notified by the Central Government in this behalf, in the State of Andhra Pradesh or in the State of Bihar or in the State of Telangana or in the State of West Bengal, and acquires and installs any new asset for the purposes of the said undertaking or enterprise during the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 2015 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2020 in the said backward area, then, there shall be allowed a deduction of a sum equal to fifteen per cent of the actual cost of such new asset for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such new asset is installed. (2) If any new asset acquired and installed by the assessee is sold or otherwise transferred, except in connection with the amalgamation or demerger or re-organisation of business referred to in clause (xiii)or cla

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B