{"id":111560,"date":"2026-07-06T13:37:45","date_gmt":"2026-07-06T08:07:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=111560"},"modified":"2026-07-06T15:08:34","modified_gmt":"2026-07-06T09:38:34","slug":"doctrine-of-per-incuriam","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/doctrine-of-per-incuriam\/","title":{"rendered":"Doctrine of Per Incuriam"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><b>Doctrine of Per Incuriam Latest News<\/b><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court recently clarified the circumstances under which a judicial decision can be declared per incuriam\u2014a legal doctrine that allows courts to disregard a precedent rendered in ignorance of binding law or an earlier authoritative judgment.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><b>About Doctrine of Per Incuriam<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The term &#8220;per incuriam,&#8221; <\/span><b>meaning &#8216;through lack of care<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">,&#8217; refers to <\/span><b>judgments passed without reference to<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, or in ignorance of, a <\/span><b>statute or an earlier judgement\/<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">precedent which <\/span><b>would have been<\/b> <b>relevant and therefore affected the result of the case.\u00a0<\/b><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">As per legal principles, these <\/span><b>judgments<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, which are decided <\/span><b>based on incorrect interpretations of the law,<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> may cause legal and practical issues.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Therefore, they are <\/span><b>not treated as binding precedent,<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> and the <\/span><b>courts often take steps to correct them.<\/b><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Since per incuriam decisions <\/span><b>involve preceden<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">t, the doctrine <\/span><b>bears a direct relation to<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> the<\/span><b> doctrine of \u201cstare decisis\u201d<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> which <\/span><b>translates to, \u2018\u2018let the decision stand<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u2019\u2019 or \u2018\u2018to stand by that which is decided\u2019\u2019, and gives binding force to decisions of the courts.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The doctrine is an <\/span><b>exception to Article 141 <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">of the Constitution of India, <\/span><b>which embodies the precedents as a matter of law.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> However, this principle is applied only in exceptional cases.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The present doctrine is<\/span><b> strictly and rightly applicable to the maxim ratio decidendi, <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">which is the <\/span><b>point that determines the judgement <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">and is binding in nature, and<\/span><b> not to the obiter dicta<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> i.e., <\/span><b>a remark made<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> during the course of the discussion having persuasive value.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>Case Laws:\u00a0<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In the <\/span><b>State of Assam v. Ripa Sarma,<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> it was held that when a <\/span><b>judgment <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">is pronounced in such a manner that i<\/span><b>s ignorant of earlier judgments <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">of the court <\/span><b>by either similar or larger benches<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, it <\/span><b>would be per incuriam.\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>Recent Observations by the Supreme Court:<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Court held that a <\/span><b>judgment <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">may be <\/span><b>treated as per incuriam<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> when its <\/span><b>ratio is irreconcilable with <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">an <\/span><b>earlier decision <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">rendered<\/span><b> by a bench of equal or larger strength<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> or <\/span><b>when a relevant statutory provision<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, rule, or regulation was <\/span><b>not brought to the Court&#8217;s attention.\u00a0<\/b><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It is <\/span><b>not the numerical strength of judges taking a particular view<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> that is <\/span><b>relevant<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, but it is instead the <\/span><b>strength of the bench<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, which is the <\/span><b>determinative factor<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> of the binding nature of a particular view.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The doctrine <\/span><b>applies only to the binding reasoning (ratio decidendi) of a judgment<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> and not to its observations (obiter dicta).\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The judicial discipline <\/span><b>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.<\/b><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It also reiterated that a<\/span><b> decision of a larger bench is binding on subsequent benches of equal or lesser strength.\u00a0<\/b><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Court clarified that a <\/span><b>judgment cannot be declared per incuriam<\/b> <b>merely because it reached an incorrect conclusion after considering an earlier precedent<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> or because an alternative interpretation may suggest a conflict with prior decisions. <\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>News<\/b><strong>: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thelawadvice.com\/news\/per-incuriam-doctrine-explained-supreme-court-lays-down-key-principles\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">LAW<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Doctrine of Per Incuriam is a legal doctrine under which a judgment delivered in ignorance of a relevant statute or binding precedent is not treated as a binding precedent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":23,"featured_media":111531,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[8538,21,22,23],"class_list":{"0":"post-111560","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-upsc-prelims-current-affairs","8":"tag-doctrine-of-per-incuriam","9":"tag-prelims-pointers","10":"tag-upsc-current-affairs","11":"tag-upsc-prelims-current-affairs","12":"no-featured-image-padding"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111560","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/23"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=111560"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111560\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":111585,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111560\/revisions\/111585"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/111531"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111560"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=111560"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=111560"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}