He said it, himself.
The principle applies to an appeal to authority, with the authority being itself. It is a statement that while unfounded and unproven, it may bear some weight depending solely on the authority or status of the individual or tribunal who released it. In other terms, an ipse dixit’s attacker makes an unfair argument and considers his term to be the final one. The word ipse dixit has traditionally been used in legal and regulatory rulings as a criticism of claims focused purely on a person or organization’s authority. A mere ipse dixit statement on the grounds of detention cannot sustain the detention order and has to be ignored.
In Kanmani vs. The Secretary to Government, the Madras High Court held that “The detenu in the instant case has not moved the bail application and no other co-accused, had been enlarged on bail, resorting to the provisions of Act was not permissible. Therefore, the impugned order of detention based on mere ipse dixit statements on the grounds of detention and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”
In M.P. Oil Extraction and Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors., it was held that “The State’s administrative authority must be considered to be beyond its power to establish a framework for public administration. Unless the policy system is totally capricious and can be obviously seen to be unconstitutional and focused on the pure ipse dixit of executive officers and hence offends Article 14 of the Constitution or offends any constitutional provisions or clashes with some legislative requirement, the Court cannot and should not triumph over its limit and tinker with the policy decision of the executive functionary of the State.”