In News:

The Supreme Court recently clarified the scope and application of the Doctrine of Per Incuriam, explaining the limited circumstances under which a judicial precedent can be disregarded. The Court reaffirmed that the doctrine is an exception to the principle of judicial precedents and should be invoked only in exceptional situations to maintain consistency and certainty in the legal system.

What is the Doctrine of Per Incuriam?

The Latin expression "per incuriam" means "through lack of care" or "through inadvertence." A judgment is said to be per incuriam when it is delivered without considering a binding statutory provision or an earlier authoritative judicial precedent that would have materially affected the outcome of the case.

Such decisions are regarded as having been rendered due to ignorance or oversight of the applicable law and, therefore, do not possess binding precedential value.

The doctrine prevents erroneous judicial decisions from becoming binding law and helps preserve consistency in the administration of justice.

Relationship with the Doctrine of Stare Decisis

The doctrine of per incuriam is closely linked to the principle of stare decisis, which means "to stand by what has been decided." Under this doctrine, courts generally follow precedents established by higher courts to ensure legal certainty, predictability and uniformity.

The doctrine of per incuriam acts as a limited exception to this rule by allowing courts to disregard a precedent that was rendered in ignorance of binding law or an earlier authoritative decision.

Constitutional Basis

The doctrine operates as an exception to Article 141 of the Constitution, which provides that:

"The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India."

While Article 141 gives binding force to Supreme Court judgments, a decision rendered per incuriam does not enjoy the same precedential authority because it is considered legally flawed due to the omission of relevant law.

Applicability

The doctrine applies only to the ratio decidendi of a judgment—the legal principle or reasoning that forms the basis of the decision and is binding on lower courts.

It does not apply to obiter dicta, which are incidental observations or remarks made by a judge that may have persuasive value but are not legally binding.

Supreme Court's Recent Observations

The Supreme Court clarified the following principles regarding the doctrine:

• A judgment may be declared per incuriam if its ratio decidendi is irreconcilable with an earlier decision of a bench of equal or larger strength.
• The doctrine also applies where a relevant statutory provision, rule or regulation was not brought to the Court's attention while deciding the case.
• The strength of the bench, rather than the number of judges expressing a particular opinion, determines the binding nature of a precedent.
• A co-equal bench cannot overrule an earlier decision of another co-equal bench. If it disagrees with the earlier view, it must refer the matter to a larger bench.
• Decisions of a larger bench are binding on all benches of equal or smaller strength.
• A judgment cannot be declared per incuriam merely because it reached an incorrect conclusion after considering an earlier precedent or because another interpretation of the law appears more persuasive.

Important Case Law

State of Assam v. Ripa Sarma

The Court held that a judgment rendered without considering an earlier binding decision of a bench of equal or larger strength would be regarded as per incuriam and would not constitute a binding precedent.