Legal Reasoning
What is tested
Whether you can use precedent and statute as tools: extract the ratio, detect a per incuriam decision, and interpret a term.
Core rules
- Article 141: the law declared by the Supreme Court binds all courts. What binds is the ratio decidendi - the principle applied to the material facts - not obiter observations.
- Sub silentio: a point neither argued nor decided is not a precedent.
- Per incuriam: a judgment given in ignorance of a statute or binding authority is not binding (State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.).
- A larger bench prevails; a later contrary Division Bench does not overrule an earlier Division Bench.
- Interpretation: literal rule first; golden rule to avoid absurdity; mischief rule (Heydon's case) where the words are ambiguous; harmonious construction; reading down to save validity; presumption of constitutionality.
- Circumstantial reasoning: the chain must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra).
Worked example
A 2022 Division Bench holds a clause void without noticing the 2018 amendment that deleted it. A 2024 Division Bench should not follow that view: the earlier decision is per incuriam on the point, and the court applies the amended text, stating expressly why the precedent does not bind it. That explanation is what earns the marks.
Traps
- Treating a decision on special facts as a general principle.
- Citing obiter as binding under Article 141.
- Citing a judgment without stating its ratio.