Opening the can of worm on judicial overreach, the Supreme Court said on Thursday that the words used by Judges in their judgments are not to be read as if they were an Act of Parliament.

While setting aside the judgement of the Karnataka High Court on the ownership of trees on private land, a bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and P Sathasivam observed that neither everything that a judge says constitutes a precedent, nor does the observation of a superior court has a binding effect on the subordinate judiciary.

“Reliance by courts on an earlier decision without looking into the factual background of the case before it is not permissible,” the apex court said.

While referring to the judgment of the High Court the bench said, “The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a Court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent.”

Recently, different benches of the Supreme Court have passed many observations on judicial activism and overreach while dealing with public interest litigations (PILs).

“The only thing in a judge’s decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi (general rule binding on lower courts),” the court said.

“The Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid’s theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated,” said the bench in the judgement.

“Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes,” said the bench echoing its view on citations.