How to Read Supreme Court Judgements | Advocate Guide to Judgements | 2026 | Citation | Headnotes | Ratio | Good Law
EduLaw EditorialAdvocate PlaybookA practical 2026 guide to how senior advocates find, read, extract ratio, distinguish & cite Supreme Court judgments in Indian courts. With Article 141 explained.
Edu Law · Advocate Playbook Reading Ratio v Obiter Article 141 Authority Notes Checklist FAQ On this page Paragraph 42, My Lord Why most lawyers use judgments wrong How seniors actually read a judgment Anatomy of a Supreme Court judgment Ratio decidendi v obiter dicta Understanding Article 141 Finding the binding paragraph Building authority notes How to distinguish a judgment Is it still good law? Using judgments in oral argument Real examples from litigation The senior advocate checklist FAQ EduLaw › Advocate Playbook › Using Supreme Court Judgments Advocate Playbook · No. 012 How Senior Advocates Use Supreme Court Judgments in Court A practical litigation guide to finding, reading, extracting the ratio, distinguishing, verifying and citing judgments the way it is actually done before Indian courts — not the way it is taught in a classroom. Updated 14 June 2026 ~32 min read For advocates · juniors · litigation associates · law students · AIBE & CLAT PG aspirants Section 01 "Paragraph 42, My Lord." Picture a regular admission board on a Monday morning. Two counsel are arguing the same proposition — that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial offends Article 21. Both have cited the same Supreme Court judgment. "Counsel, you say the Supreme Court has held this. Where exactly does the Court say that? Show me." — The Bench The first advocate begins flipping. Three hundred pages of a judgment, no tabs, no highlights. "It's… somewhere in the liberty discussion, My Lord… one moment…" — Advocate A, leafing The second advocate does not look down. "Paragraph 42, My Lord. Page 17 of the compilation. The operative line is the third sentence." — Advocate B, ready Both advocates read the same judgment. Only one of them used it. That single difference — knowing where in a judgment the binding principle actually lives, and being able to put your finger on it the second the Bench asks — is the entire subject of this playbook. The Court does not reward the advocate who has read the most cases. It rewards the advocate who can show the Court the exact line of binding law on the point in issue, demonstrate that it applies to these facts, and confirm that it is still good law. Everything a senior advocate does with a judgment is built to make that moment effortless. The core skill A judgment is not "authority" because it exists. It becomes authority only when you can isolate its ratio , match it to your facts, and prove it has not been overruled or distinguished. This guide teaches that workflow end to end. Section 02 Why Most Lawyers Use Judgments Wrong Before learning the right method, see the mistakes that get advocates embarrassed in open court. Almost every weak citation falls into one of these traps. Hover or tap each card. Mistake 01 Reading only the headnote Headnotes are written by reporters and editors, not by the Court. They are not law. A judge can — and will — say "that is the headnote, show me the paragraph." Mistake 02 Ignoring the facts The ratio is the rule applied to material facts . Cite the principle without the factual matrix and you cannot defend it when the Bench tests how far it extends. Mistake 03 Confusing obiter for ratio Quoting a stirring general observation that was never necessary to the decision. Persuasive, yes; binding, no. Opposing counsel will pounce. Mistake 04 Ignoring later judgments The case you love may have been doubted, explained away, or referred to a larger bench. Citing it as settled when it is under reference is fatal to credibility. Mistake 05 Citation dumping Filing twenty authorities for one proposition. It signals you don't know which one is best. One precise binding paragraph beats a fat compilation. Mistake 06 Using an overruled judgment The cardinal sin. Relying on something the Supreme Court itself has overruled or rendered per incuriam . It can sink your case and your reputation. Mistake 07 Using a distinguishable case A judgment whose material facts or statutory framework differ from yours. The Bench (or opponent) distinguishes it in one sentence, and your argument collapses. Mistake 08 Quoting the wrong bench strength Leaning on a two-judge decision against a Constitution Bench on the same point. The larger bench controls; the smaller one cannot help you. Notice the theme: each mistake is a failure of selection and verification , not of reading. Senior advocates read fewer cases than juniors imagine — but they verify and weaponise the ones they keep. Section 03 How Senior Advocates Actually Read a Judgment A senior does not read a judgment from page one to the end like a novel. There is a deliberate, repeatable workflow. Tap each step to expand. 1 Read the operative order first + Jump to the last few paragraphs — the directions and relief. Knowing what the Court actually did (allowed, dismissed, remanded, read down a provision) tells you instantly whether this case can help you, before you invest an hour reading it. 2 Identify the bench and date + How many judges? Constitution Bench (5+) or a two-judge bench? What is the date — has anything come after it? Bench strength decides binding weight; date decides whether it is the latest word. 3 Lock down the material facts + Write the facts in three lines. The ratio attaches to these facts. If your facts differ on a material point, the case may be distinguishable — and you need to know that before you rely on it or before your opponent does. 4 Find the precise question of law decided + The Court usually frames the issues, often numbered. The ratio answers these specific questions . Anything the Court says outside the framed questions is, almost by definition, obiter. 5 Trace the reasoning to the ratio + Follow the chain: facts → issue → analysis → conclusion. The sentence(s) where the Court states the rule it is applying to decide the issue is the ratio. Mark it. This is your binding paragraph. 6 Separate ratio from obiter + Highlight ratio in one colour, persuasive obiter in another. You will cite ratio as binding and obiter only as support. Mixing them up is how juniors lose arguments. 7 Run the "good law" check + Use a citator / case-history tool (Manupatra, SCC Online, Indian Kanoon's cited-by) to confirm it is followed/affirmed and not overruled, reversed, doubted, or referred. Never skip this. (See Section 10.) 8 Reduce to a one-line authority entry + Convert the whole judgment into one line: Proposition — Case — para — page in compilation . That single line is what you actually carry into court. (See Section 8.) Junior's habit vs senior's habit. A junior reads to understand the case. A senior reads to extract the one sentence that wins the point and to anticipate how it can be attacked. Same text — completely different output. Section 04 The Anatomy of a Supreme Court Judgment Every reported judgment has the same skeleton. Knowing it lets you navigate any 300-page decision in minutes. Tap each part to see what it is and how a senior treats it. Facts What happened Issues Questions framed Arguments Both sides Reasoning The analysis Ratio The binding rule Directions Guidelines / orders Relief Operative result Tap any part above Each component plays a different role in argument. Select one to see how a senior advocate uses it. A practical reading sequence reverses the order of the document: a senior reads Relief → Issues → Ratio → Facts , and only dips into Arguments and Reasoning when the point is contested. The narrative facts and the recital of counsel's submissions are usually the least useful part for citation purposes. Section 05 Ratio Decidendi vs Obiter Dicta What is ratio decidendi? Ratio decidendi ("the reason for the decision") is the legal principle the court applies to the material facts that was necessary to reach its conclusion. Under Article 141, only the ratio of a Supreme Court judgment is binding on all courts in India. What is obiter dicta? Obiter dicta ("things said by the way") are observations a judge makes that were not necessary to decide the case — general remarks, hypotheticals, comments on points not in issue. Obiter is persuasive but not binding. Obiter of the Supreme Court carries great weight, but a court is not bound to follow it. Test Ratio Decidendi Obiter Dicta Necessary to the decision? Yes — the case turns on it No — could be removed and result stands Tied to material facts? Yes Often general or hypothetical Binding under Art. 141? Binding Persuasive only Answers a framed issue? Yes Usually outside the framed issues How a senior cites it "It is the law that…" "The Court has also observed…" Worked example In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the ratio is that the "procedure established by law" in Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable, and that Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not water-tight compartments — applied to the impounding of a passport without a hearing. The Court's broader musings on the dignity of the individual and the texture of liberty, however eloquent, are obiter to the passport question. A senior cites the fair-procedure principle as binding ratio; the dignity observations only as colour. Courtroom tip. When opposing counsel reads a ringing sentence at you, the most powerful reply is often: "With respect, that was obiter — it was not necessary to the decision, which turned on [the actual issue]." If you are right, the citation evaporates. Quick self-test A two-judge bench, deciding a contractual dispute, remarks: "Had this been a consumer matter, our conclusion may have been different." Is that remark ratio or obiter? Ratio — the Court stated a clear legal position Obiter — the consumer point was not in issue and not necessary to the decision Binding — anything a Supreme Court bench says is binding Correct answer: Obiter. The case was a contractual dispute; the consumer-law comment was hypothetical and unnecessary to the result. It is persuasive at best. Citing it as binding would invite an easy rebuttal. Section 06 Understanding Article 141 What is Article 141 of the Constitution of India? Article 141 reads: "The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India." Two consequences follow. First, only the law declared (the ratio) binds — not the result on facts and not the obiter. Second, "all courts" means all courts other than the Supreme Court itself : the Supreme Court is not bound by its own decisions, though it follows them as a matter of discipline. Article 141 sits inside a wider scheme. To use judgments well, an advocate should be fluent in the related constitutional provisions: Article 141 Binding precedent Law declared by the Supreme Court binds all other courts. The engine of the doctrine of precedent in India. Article 136 Special leave The discretionary appellate gateway (SLP). Many leading rulings arrive through Article 136, so a denial of leave is not a decision on merits / law. Article 32 SC writ jurisdiction Original jurisdiction to enforce fundamental rights — itself a guaranteed fundamental right. The source of much Article 21 jurisprudence. Article 226 HC writ jurisdiction Wider than Article 32 (rights and other purposes). High Court rulings bind subordinate courts in that State; the Supreme Court binds everyone. Bench strength decides everything When two Supreme Court judgments collide, the conflict is resolved by bench strength, not by which is newer. Tap to read the rules visually. Constitution Bench (5, 7, 9…) Binds every smaller and coordinate bench. A larger bench prevails over a smaller one regardless of date. Three-Judge Bench Binds two-judge benches. If it disagrees with a Constitution Bench, it must refer the matter — it cannot overrule it. Two-Judge (Division) Bench The workhorse bench. Bound by all larger benches. A coordinate two-judge bench that disagrees must refer, not differ. The coordinate bench rule A bench of equal strength is bound by an earlier coordinate-bench decision as a matter of judicial discipline, propriety and comity . If it genuinely disagrees, the correct course is to refer the question to a larger bench — not to simply take a contrary view. The Supreme Court reiterated this discipline pointedly in Sk. Md. Anisur Rahaman v. State of West Bengal (decided 26 November 2025), warning against "bench-hunting" — litigants re-agitating settled points before a differently constituted bench in the hope of a different outcome — and tying the value of finality directly to Article 141. Exceptions — when a Supreme Court judgment does not bind Doctrine What it means Effect on binding force Per incuriam Decided in ignorance of a binding statute or a binding precedent that was directly relevant Loses binding force; "law not declared" Sub silentio A point logically necessary was assumed/not argued and not consciously decided Not a binding precedent on that point Overruled / reversed A later (usually larger) bench has set it aside No longer good law Referred / doubted Correctness is under reconsideration by a larger bench Weakened; cite with caution and disclosure Prospective overruling The Court overrules but limits the new rule to the future (e.g. Golak Nath , 1967) Old rule still governs past transactions Section 07 How to Identify the Binding Paragraph This is the skill from Section 1 — finding "paragraph 42." Below is a short, annotated specimen of how a senior marks up a judgment. Yellow = ratio (binding). Blue = obiter (persuasive only). Hover or tap a highlight to see the reasoning. Ratio — binding Obiter — persuasive 39. The appellant has been in custody as an undertrial for nearly five years. The trial is nowhere near conclusion, and the delay is not attributable to him. 40. Liberty is the most cherished value in a constitutional democracy, and its deprivation must always weigh on the judicial conscience. 41. We have considered the nature of accusations, the stage of trial and the period of incarceration already undergone. 42. Where an undertrial has suffered prolonged incarceration and there is no reasonable prospect of the trial concluding in the near future, continued detention violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, and bail ought ordinarily to be granted notwithstanding the rigours of the special statute. 43. We may add that even a shorter period of custody could, in an appropriate case, justify the same approach. 44. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is directed to be released on bail on the terms set out below. The binding paragraph is 42 — the rule applied to the material facts (long custody + stalled trial) that was necessary to grant bail. Paragraph 40 is inspiring obiter; paragraph 43 is a hypothetical extension that the case did not test. In court you cite " paragraph 42 ," not the page, and you read only the operative sentence aloud. How seniors mark physical compilations Binding paragraph: yellow highlighter + a flag tab on the page edge. Distinguishing facts of the cited case: a margin note. The one-line proposition: written on the tab itself, so the Bench's question is answered before the page is even open. Section 08 How Senior Advocates Build Authority Notes How do senior advocates prepare authority notes? An authority note (or "list of authorities" with a brief note) reduces every judgment to a single actionable line: the proposition of law, the case that establishes it, the exact paragraph, and the page in the compilation . Authorities are arranged in the order the propositions will be argued — not chronologically — and each binding paragraph is tabbed and highlighted in the paper compilation. Here is the working template seniors use. Note the structure: one row per proposition , not one row per case. You argue propositions; cases are merely the proof. AUTHORITY NOTE — [Case Title] · [Court / Bench] Counsel: [Name] · For: [Party] · Hearing: [Date] · Compilation Vol. [No.] Proposition 1 Procedure under Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 — Constitution Bench (7J) Binding para: 5–7 · Compilation p. 12 · Status: followed; good law Proposition 2 Prolonged undertrial custody with no near prospect of trial concluding entitles the accused to bail even under a special statute. [Lead bail authority on point], (20XX) X SCC X — 2J Binding para: 42 · Compilation p. 17 · Status: relied upon in subsequent benches Proposition 3 (anticipating opponent) Opponent's case is distinguishable: it concerned a flight-risk accused with a foreign passport — a material fact absent here. [Opponent's authority] — distinguished on facts Distinguishing para: 18 · Compilation p. 31 Three features make this note courtroom-grade. It is sequenced by argument so you never shuffle pages. It states status so you are never caught citing bad law. And it pre-loads the distinction of your opponent's best case, so you are arguing offence and defence from one sheet. Print / Save this template (Ctrl/Cmd + P) Section 09 How to Distinguish a Judgment How do you distinguish a case? You distinguish a case by identifying a material fact (or the precise legal question, or the statutory provision) present in the cited judgment that is absent in your matter — or vice versa — so that the ratio cannot be applied. Because the ratio attaches to material facts, change a material fact and the binding principle falls away. Distinguishing is the single most useful courtroom move against an adverse precedent that you cannot overrule. You do not fight the law; you take your case outside it. The four grounds of distinction Ground What you argue Material facts differ "That case had X; this case does not. The ratio depended on X." Different question of law "The Court there decided issue A; the issue before this Court is B." Different statutory provision "That ruling interpreted Section P; we are under Section Q, which is differently worded." Observation was obiter "The line relied upon was not necessary to that decision — it was obiter." Interactive exercise — can you distinguish it? Opponent cites a Supreme Court ruling granting bail to an undertrial held 5 years where trial had stalled. Your client is the accused — but has been in custody only 4 months and the trial begins next week. What is your best response if you are opposing bail? Distinguish on material facts: the cited case turned on prolonged custody and a stalled trial — both absent here Argue the cited judgment is per incuriam Concede — it is a Supreme Court judgment and therefore binding on these facts too Correct: distinguish on material facts. The ratio of that case is tied to prolonged incarceration with no near prospect of trial. Here custody is short and trial is imminent, so the ratio simply does not reach your facts. There is no basis to allege per incuriam , and conceding ignores that the principle is fact-dependent. Section 10 How to Verify Whether a Judgment Is Still Good Law Before any judgment enters your compilation, run its case history. The treatment terms below appear in citators (SCC Online, Manupatra) and in the "cited by" trail on Indian Kanoon. Each tells you whether you can rely on the case and how strongly. Treatment Meaning Can you rely on it? Followed A later court applied its ratio Yes — strengthens it Relied upon Cited as authority for the proposition Yes Affirmed Upheld on appeal Yes — strongest Distinguished Held inapplicable on different facts Yes, but expect the same attack Doubted / Referred Correctness questioned; under reconsideration Cautiously — and disclose it Per incuriam Ignored binding statute/precedent No binding force Overruled Set aside by a later/larger bench No — do not cite as law Reversed Upper court reversed the very decision No The verification decision tree Has the judgment been overruled or reversed? Yes Stop. Do not cite as good law. At most, note its overruling for context. No Proceed ↓ Is it per incuriam or sub silentio on your point? Yes Weak/unsafe. Use only if you can defend why the doctrine does not apply. No Proceed ↓ Has it been doubted / referred to a larger bench? Yes Cite with full disclosure of the reference; have a fallback authority ready. No Proceed ↓ Does a larger bench say something contrary? Yes The larger bench governs. Rely on that instead. No Good law. Tab it, highlight the binding paragraph, and add it to your authority note. Section 11 How Senior Advocates Use Judgments During Oral Arguments How do advocates cite judgments in court? An advocate states the proposition first , then offers the authority for it, then takes the Bench to the precise paragraph and reads only the operative line. Example: "My submission is that prolonged undertrial custody attracts Article 21. That is settled by [case], paragraph 42, at page 17 of the compilation." The Bench is assumed to have read the briefs; oral argument is for the decisive line, not a recital. Recent practice reinforces brevity. The Supreme Court has been tightening oral-argument discipline — encouraging short advance "notes," capping the length of written submissions, and signalling that counsel should come to the point. The premium on knowing your one binding paragraph has never been higher. A hearing simulation "You say this is settled. By whom, and where?" — Bench "By a Constitution Bench, My Lord. Paragraph 7, page 12 of the compilation. The operative words are: 'the procedure must be fair, just and reasonable.'" — Senior counsel "But the other side cites a contrary two-judge decision." — Bench "With respect, that is a coordinate two-judge bench and cannot prevail over the Constitution Bench on the same point. And on facts it is distinguishable — it concerned a flight-risk accused, which is absent here." — Senior counsel Notice three moves the senior makes in seconds: bench strength (Constitution Bench beats two-judge), pinpoint citation (para 7, page 12, exact words), and a ready distinction of the opponent's case. All three came from the authority note built in Section 8. What judges actually evaluate. Judges weigh authorities by (1) bench strength, (2) directness — does the ratio decide this point, (3) currency — is it still good law, and (4) factual fit. An advocate who addresses all four before being asked controls the hearing. Section 12 Real Examples From Indian Litigation How the same skills play out across practice areas. Use the search box to filter by area or principle. Area Leading principle How a senior deploys it Bail "Bail is the rule, jail the exception"; prolonged undertrial custody engages Article 21 Pins the principle to the length of custody + trial stage facts; expects the Bench to ask "how long, and why the delay?" Constitutional Basic structure doctrine ( Kesavananda Bharati , 1973); fair procedure ( Maneka Gandhi , 1978) Cites the Constitution Bench ratio for binding weight; never leans on the eloquent obiter as if it were law. Digital evidence Section 65B certificate is a condition precedent for electronic records ( Arjun Panditrao Khotkar , 2020) Reads the precise holding; distinguishes where the original device itself is produced (the carve-out in the ratio). Article 21 Right to speedy trial; dignity and personal liberty Separates binding speedy-trial ratio from the broader liberty rhetoric; cites only what the case decided . Commercial Sanctity of contract; limited judicial interference in commercial bargains Matches the cited case's contractual matrix to the client's; distinguishes consumer/unequal-bargain cases. Criminal Benefit of doubt; standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt Anchors to the evidentiary facts of the precedent; resists citing acquittal authorities with dissimilar evidence. Arbitration Minimal court interference; narrow grounds to set aside awards Uses the latest larger-bench position; flags any decision currently referred for reconsideration. Tax Strict interpretation of taxing statutes; reading down is impermissible Cites the binding interpretive rule; distinguishes revenue's authorities on differently-worded provisions. Service law Natural justice in disciplinary proceedings; proportionality of penalty Ties the ratio to whether a hearing was actually denied — a material fact that decides applicability. Why this matrix matters Across every area the move is identical: isolate the ratio, fit it to facts, verify it is current, and be ready to distinguish the other side. The doctrine is the constant; only the subject changes. Section 13 The Senior Advocate Checklist Tick each item as you prepare any judgment for court. Print it and keep it in the file. Before a judgment enters your compilation ✓ I read the operative order and issues before reading the whole judgment. ✓ I noted the bench strength and the date . ✓ I wrote the material facts in three lines. ✓ I identified the ratio and marked the exact paragraph. ✓ I separated ratio from obiter in two colours. ✓ I ran the good-law check : not overruled, reversed, per incuriam, or referred. ✓ I confirmed no larger bench says the contrary. ✓ I reduced the case to a one-line authority entry (proposition · case · para · page). ✓ I pre-loaded the distinction for my opponent's best authority. ✓ My compilation is tabbed and sequenced by argument , not chronologically. Print this checklist In Closing Key Takeaways A judgment becomes authority only when you can isolate its ratio, fit it to your facts, and prove it is still good law. Reading is not using. Under Article 141 , only the ratio decidendi binds — not the obiter and not the result. Learn to tell them apart and you can both rely on cases and dismantle the ones used against you. Bench strength governs conflicts. A larger bench beats a smaller one regardless of date; a coordinate bench that disagrees must refer, not differ. Distinguishing on material facts is your strongest move against an adverse precedent you cannot overrule. Always run the good-law check . Overruled, reversed, per incuriam, sub silentio, or referred — each weakens or destroys a citation. Carry authority notes , not a stack of cases: proposition · case · paragraph · page, sequenced by argument. In court, state the proposition first , then the case, then the pinpoint paragraph . Be the advocate who answers "Paragraph 42, My Lord." Questions Frequently Asked Questions What is ratio decidendi? + It is the legal principle a court applies to the material facts that was necessary to reach its decision. Under Article 141, only the ratio of a Supreme Court judgment is binding on all courts in India. What is obiter dicta? + Statements made by a judge in passing that were not necessary to the decision — general remarks or comments on points not in issue. Obiter is persuasive but not binding, even when it comes from the Supreme Court. How are Supreme Court judgments used in court? + An advocate states a proposition, cites the case that establishes it, and takes the Bench to the precise paragraph — reading only the operative line. The authority must be the right bench strength, directly on point, still good law, and a factual fit. How do you know if a judgment is binding? + It is binding if it contains a ratio on your point, has not been overruled/reversed/rendered per incuriam, and is not contradicted by a larger bench. A sub silentio or per incuriam decision does not bind on that point. How do you distinguish a case? + Show a material fact, legal question, or statutory provision in the cited case that differs from yours, so the ratio does not apply. Because the ratio attaches to material facts, changing a material fact removes the binding effect. What is a larger bench judgment? + One decided by more judges (e.g. a 5-judge Constitution Bench). It binds all smaller and coordinate benches. A smaller bench that disagrees must refer the question, not overrule it. What is per incuriam? + A decision rendered in ignorance of a binding statute or a binding precedent directly relevant to the issue. Such a decision is said not to have "declared the law" and loses its binding force. What is prospective overruling? + When a court overrules a precedent but applies the new rule only to the future, leaving past transactions governed by the old law. The Supreme Court first adopted it in Golak Nath (1967). Master the craft, one playbook at a time. This is Advocate Playbook No. 012. Each playbook turns one courtroom skill into a repeatable system you can use the same week. Explore more Advocate Playbooks on EduLaw → Further reading Article 141, Constitution of India — the text and Constituent Assembly debates. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) — fair procedure under Article 21. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — the basic structure doctrine. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) — Section 65B electronic evidence. Sk. Md. Anisur Rahaman v. State of West Bengal (26 Nov 2025) — finality, comity and bench discipline. Citators & case-history tools: SCC Online, Manupatra, Indian Kanoon ("cited by" trail). EduLaw · Advocate Playbook Practical legal education for advocates, juniors, litigation associates, law students, and judicial & AIBE / CLAT PG aspirants. Disclaimer: This article is educational content, not legal advice, and does not create an advocate–client relationship. Case names, doctrines and dates are provided for learning; always verify the current status of any judgment in an authorised citator before relying on it in court, as the law and a case's treatment may have changed after the date of publication (14 June 2026). For advice on a specific matter, consult a qualified advocate. © 2026 EduLaw. All rights reserved. /* Progress bar */ var progress=document.getElementById('progress'); window.addEventListener('scroll',function(){ var h=document.documentElement.scrollHeight-window.innerHeight; progress.style.width=(window.scrollY/h*100)+'%'; },{passive:true}); /* Active TOC highlight */ var tocLinks=[].slice.call(document.querySelectorAll('#toc a')); var sections=tocLinks.map(function(a){return document.querySelector(a.getAttribute('href'));}); var obs=new IntersectionObserver(function(entries){ entries.forEach(function(e){ if(e.isIntersecting){ var id='#'+e.target.id; tocLinks.forEach(function(a){a.classList.toggle('active',a.getAttribute('href')===id);}); } }); },{rootMargin:'-30% 0px -60% 0px'}); sections.forEach(function(s){if(s)obs.observe(s);}); /* Process flow accordions */ document.querySelectorAll('#flow .step-head').forEach(function(h){ h.addEventListener('click',function(){h.parentElement.classList.toggle('open');}); }); /* Anatomy diagram */ var anatData={ facts:["Facts","The factual matrix. The ratio attaches to the MATERIAL facts only — strip the rest. This is where distinctions are won or lost. A senior writes these in three lines."], issues:["Issues","The questions of law the Court framed (often numbered). The ratio answers these. Anything said outside the framed issues is usually obiter."], arguments:["Arguments","Submissions of both sides. Useful for context but rarely cited — what counsel argued is not what the Court held. Skim, don't rely."], reasoning:["Reasoning","The analysis connecting facts → issue → conclusion. Read closely only when the point is contested; this is where the ratio is forged."], ratio:["Ratio Decidendi","The binding rule applied to the material facts — your pinpoint paragraph. This is the only part that binds under Article 141. Highlight it."], directions:["Directions / Guidelines","Operative directions or guidelines the Court lays down. Often quasi-legislative and frequently cited — but check they were necessary to the decision."], relief:["Relief / Operative Order","What the Court actually did (allowed, dismissed, remanded, read down). Read this FIRST to know if the case can help you at all."] }; var anatDetail=document.getElementById('anat-detail'); document.querySelectorAll('#anatomy .anat').forEach(function(el){ el.addEventListener('click',function(){ document.querySelectorAll('#anatomy .anat').forEach(function(x){x.classList.remove('sel');}); el.classList.add('sel'); var d=anatData[el.dataset.k]; anatDetail.innerHTML=' '+d[0]+' '+d[1]; }); }); /* Quizzes */ document.querySelectorAll('.quiz').forEach(function(q){ var explain=q.querySelector('.explain'); q.querySelectorAll('.opt').forEach(function(btn){ btn.addEventListener('click',function(){ q.querySelectorAll('.opt').forEach(function(b){b.disabled=true;}); if(btn.dataset.c==='true'){btn.classList.add('correct');} else{btn.classList.add('wrong'); q.querySelectorAll('.opt').forEach(function(b){if(b.dataset.c==='true')b.classList.add('correct');});} explain.classList.add('show'); }); }); }); /* FAQ accordions */ document.querySelectorAll('.faq-q').forEach(function(b){ b.addEventListener('click',function(){b.parentElement.classList.toggle('open');}); }); /* Checklist toggles */ document.querySelectorAll('#checklist .check-item').forEach(function(it){ it.addEventListener('click',function(){it.classList.toggle('done');}); }); /* Precedent matrix search */ var mInput=document.getElementById('matrix-input'); mInput.addEventListener('input',function(){ var q=this.value.toLowerCase(); document.querySelectorAll('#matrix-table tbody tr').forEach(function(tr){ tr.classList.toggle('hide',q && tr.textContent.toLowerCase().indexOf(q)===-1); }); });