Doctrine of Per Incuriam

Doctrine of Per Incuriam Latest News

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court recently clarified the circumstances under which a judicial decision can be declared per incuriam—a legal doctrine that allows courts to disregard a precedent rendered in ignorance of binding law or an earlier authoritative judgment. 

About Doctrine of Per Incuriam

• The term “per incuriam,” meaning ‘through lack of care,’ refers to judgments passed without reference to, or in ignorance of, a statute or an earlier judgement/precedent which would have been relevant and therefore affected the result of the case. 
• As per legal principles, these judgments, which are decided based on incorrect interpretations of the law, may cause legal and practical issues.
• Therefore, they are not treated as binding precedent, and the courts often take steps to correct them.
• Since per incuriam decisions involve precedent, the doctrine bears a direct relation to the doctrine of “stare decisis” which translates to, ‘‘let the decision stand’’ or ‘‘to stand by that which is decided’’, and gives binding force to decisions of the courts. 
• The doctrine is an exception to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, which embodies the precedents as a matter of law. However, this principle is applied only in exceptional cases. 
• The present doctrine is strictly and rightly applicable to the maxim ratio decidendi, which is the point that determines the judgement and is binding in nature, and not to the obiter dicta i.e., a remark made during the course of the discussion having persuasive value. 
• Case Laws: 
  • In the State of Assam v. Ripa Sarma, it was held that when a judgment is pronounced in such a manner that is ignorant of earlier judgments of the court by either similar or larger benches, it would be per incuriam.  
  • Recent Observations by the Supreme Court:
    • The Court held that a judgment may be treated as per incuriam when its ratio is irreconcilable with an earlier decision rendered by a bench of equal or larger strength or when a relevant statutory provision, rule, or regulation was not brought to the Court’s attention. 
    • It is not the numerical strength of judges taking a particular view that is relevant, but it is instead the strength of the bench, which is the determinative factor of the binding nature of a particular view.
    • The doctrine applies only to the binding reasoning (ratio decidendi) of a judgment and not to its observations (obiter dicta). 
    • The judicial discipline requires a bench of co-equal strength that disagrees with an earlier decision to refer the matter to a larger bench rather than take a contrary view.
    • It also reiterated that a decision of a larger bench is binding on subsequent benches of equal or lesser strength. 
    • The Court clarified that a judgment cannot be declared per incuriam merely because it reached an incorrect conclusion after considering an earlier precedent or because an alternative interpretation may suggest a conflict with prior decisions.

News: LAW

‹ ›