Doctrine of Per Incuriam: Supreme Court Clarification

Context

The Supreme Court recently clarified the legal principles governing per incuriam judgments, explaining when an earlier judicial ruling can be disregarded for overlooking a binding statutory provision or a precedent of a competent bench.

About Doctrine of Per Incuriam

1. Per incuriam (Latin for “through lack of care”) refers to a judgment delivered in ignorance of a relevant statutory provision or an earlier judicial precedent.
2. Such judgements are not regarded as binding precedents, allowing subsequent courts to depart from or correct them.
3. The doctrine is a limited exception to the principle of stare decisis (“to stand by what has been decided”), under which courts ordinarily follow binding precedents.
4. It is a judicially evolved exception to the binding force of the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution and is invoked only in exceptional cases.
5. The doctrine applies only to the ratio decidendi, which constitutes the binding legal principle of a judgement, and not to obiter dicta, which carry only persuasive value.
6. In State of Assam v. Ripa Sarma, the Supreme Court held that a judgment delivered in ignorance of an earlier decision of a coordinate or larger bench may be treated as per incuriam.

Recent Supreme Court Observations

1. 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 or if a relevant statutory provision, rule, or regulation was not brought to the Court’s notice.
2. The binding force of a judicial precedent depends on the strength of the bench, rather than the number of judges expressing a particular view.
3. A bench of co-equal strength disagreeing with an earlier decision must refer the matter to a larger bench instead of delivering a conflicting ruling, in keeping with the principle of judicial discipline.
4. The Court reaffirmed that decisions of larger benches are binding on subsequent benches of equal or lesser strength.
5. A judgment cannot be treated as per incuriam merely because it reaches an incorrect conclusion after considering the relevant precedent or because an alternative interpretation suggests a conflict with an earlier decision.