When Can a Judgment Be Declared ‘Per Incuriam’? Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of the Doctrine
Top Court Says ‘Per Incuriam’ Is a Narrow Exception to Judicial Precedent, Applicable Only in Limited Circumstances
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the doctrine of per incuriam is a limited exception to the principle of stare decisis, holding that a judgment can be declared per incuriam only when its legal reasoning is irreconcilable with an earlier decision of a Bench of equal or larger strength, or when it was rendered without considering a relevant statutory provision. The ruling underscores that the doctrine must be applied sparingly to preserve certainty and consistency in the administration of justice.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh while examining conflicting precedents relating to service law in Haryana. The Court concluded that its 2021 decision in State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar was per incuriam because it was inconsistent with the earlier three-judge Bench ruling in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, which constituted binding precedent.
Explaining the doctrine, the Supreme Court observed that a judgment cannot be branded per incuriam merely because another Bench believes it reached an incorrect conclusion. A decision becomes per incuriam only when the Court overlooked a binding precedent or ignored a statutory provision directly relevant to the issue before it. The omission must be substantial enough to affect the legal basis of the decision rather than representing a mere error in interpretation.
The Bench further clarified that the doctrine applies only to the ratio decidendi—the binding legal principle forming the basis of the judgment—and not to obiter dicta, which are incidental observations that do not constitute binding law. This distinction is intended to prevent indiscriminate challenges to judicial precedents and to maintain legal stability.
Reiterating the importance of judicial discipline, the Court held that a Bench of co-equal strength cannot disregard an earlier binding decision simply because it disagrees with the reasoning. In such situations, the proper course is to refer the matter to a larger Bench instead of delivering a conflicting judgment. The Court emphasized that the binding force of a precedent depends on the strength of the Bench rather than the number of judges expressing a particular opinion.
The Supreme Court also cautioned against the routine invocation of the doctrine. According to the Bench, a judgment does not become per incuriam simply because it discusses an earlier precedent and arrives at a conclusion that may later be considered incorrect. Unless there is a clear conflict with a binding precedent or an obvious failure to consider an applicable statutory provision, courts should refrain from declaring earlier judgments per incuriam.
Legal experts believe the ruling significantly reinforces the constitutional principle of precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. By limiting the circumstances in which earlier judgments may be treated as per incuriam, the Supreme Court has sought to ensure consistency, predictability, and institutional discipline across all courts while preserving a narrow mechanism to correct decisions rendered in ignorance of binding law.
The decision is expected to serve as an important precedent in future disputes involving conflicting judicial rulings. It provides clear guidance to High Courts and subordinate courts on when the doctrine of per incuriam may legitimately be invoked, while reaffirming that departures from binding precedent remain the exception rather than the rule.
