Background

The Supreme Court was called upon to elucidate the circumstances under which a judicial pronouncement may be labelled as per incuriam. The question arose in the context of a plea challenging the applicability of an earlier decision that the petitioners contended was rendered without due consideration of a binding precedent.

Court’s Observations

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh addressed the issue. The Court observed that the doctrine of per incuriam operates as a limited exception to the principle of stare decisis. It emphasised that the exception is not to be invoked lightly and must be confined to specific situations where the integrity of judicial precedent is compromised.

Conditions for Declaring a Judgment Per Incuriam

The Bench held that a judgment may be declared per incuriam under two distinct conditions. First, if the ratio decidendi of the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier decision delivered by a Bench of equal strength or a larger Bench. Second, if the judgment was rendered without considering a relevant statutory provision or a binding precedent that had a direct bearing on the issue before the Court.

The Court clarified that mere disagreement with the reasoning of an earlier judgment does not satisfy the threshold for per incuriam. The inconsistency must be such that the later judgment cannot stand alongside the earlier decision without violating the hierarchical order of precedent.

Implications of the Ruling

By delineating the narrow parameters, the Supreme Court sought to prevent the indiscriminate use of the per incuriam doctrine as a tool for overturning inconvenient precedents. The ruling reinforces the stability of judicial decisions while preserving a limited mechanism to correct manifest errors that arise from oversight of binding authority.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s exposition reaffirms that stare decisis remains the governing rule, with per incuriam available only in exceptional circumstances where a judgment’s ratio conflicts with a prior decision of equal or greater authority or where the judgment was delivered in ignorance of a pertinent legal provision. The judgment provides guidance to lower courts and litigants on the limited scope within which the doctrine may be successfully invoked.