The Doctrine of Per Incuriam in Indian Jurisprudence: An Analytical Study

The Doctrine of Per Incuriam in Indian Jurisprudence: An Analytical Study

Introduction

The doctrine of per incuriam, literally meaning "through lack of care" or "through inadvertence," occupies a significant, albeit exceptional, position within the common law principle of stare decisis. In the Indian legal system, which is deeply rooted in the common law tradition and upholds the binding nature of judicial precedents under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the doctrine of per incuriam serves as a corrective mechanism. It allows courts to deviate from or disregard a prior decision that was rendered in ignorance or forgetfulness of a relevant statutory provision or a binding judicial precedent. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the doctrine of per incuriam as understood and applied by the Indian judiciary, drawing extensively upon landmark pronouncements and scholarly interpretations reflected in the provided reference materials.

Defining Per Incuriam

The concept of per incuriam has been elucidated by both English and Indian courts. It is not a tool to challenge a judgment merely on the ground of erroneous reasoning but is reserved for specific circumstances where a manifest error has occurred due to oversight.

Core Elements

A decision is considered per incuriam if it is given in ignorance or forgetfulness of:

  1. A statutory provision that is directly applicable and would have materially affected the outcome; or
  2. A binding precedent from a higher court or a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction that was not brought to the notice of the court or was overlooked.

The Supreme Court of India, in State Of U.P And Another v. Synthetics And Chemicals Ltd. And Another (1991 SCC 4 139, Supreme Court Of India, 1991), observed, drawing from English jurisprudence, that “‘Incuria’ literally means ‘carelessness’. In practice per incuriam appears to mean per ignoratium. English courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. The ‘quotable in law’ is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, ‘in ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority’.” This view was reiterated in cases like Kanta Parihar v. State Of Rajasthan And Others (Rajasthan High Court, 1999) and Rana Pratap Singh v. State Of Uttar Pradesh (Allahabad High Court, 1995).

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn., Vol. 26, pp. 297-98, para 578), as cited in Faujdar v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Azamgarh & Ors. (Allahabad High Court, 2006), states: “A decision is given per incuriam when the court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or of a court of coordinate jurisdiction which covered the case before it... or when it has acted in ignorance of a House of Lords decision... or when the decision is given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or rule having statutory force.”

A crucial aspect is that the overlooked statute or precedent must have been such that, had it been considered, it would have likely led to a contrary decision. As Sir John Donaldson M.R. stated in Duke v. Reliance Systems Ltd. (1987 2 All E.R 858), cited in Kranth Sangram Parishath v. N. Janardhan Reddy (Andhra Pradesh High Court, 1992) and Y.V Anjaneyulu v. Income-Tax Officer. (1989 SCC ONLINE AP 435, Andhra Pradesh High Court, 1989), “it has to be shown that, had the Court had this material, it must have reached a contrary decision.”

Distinction from Erroneous Judgments

The doctrine of per incuriam is narrowly construed. A decision is not per incuriam merely because it is perceived to be wrongly decided, or because the arguments were not comprehensive, or because the court did not consider every possible aspect of the matter. The Supreme Court in Mamleshwar Prasad And Another v. Kanhaiya Lal (Dead) Through Lrs. (1975 SCC 2 232, Supreme Court Of India, 1975) clarified that the per incuriam principle “is of limited application and will not be extended to cases which were merely not fully argued or which appear to take a wrong view of the authorities or to misinterpret a statute.” This sentiment is echoed in Kranth Sangram Parishath v. N. Janardhan Reddy (Andhra Pradesh High Court, 1992).

Further, as observed in State Of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer Alias Kalika Singh And Others (2003 SCC 5 448, Supreme Court Of India, 2003), “An earlier decision may seem to be incorrect to a Bench of a coordinate jurisdiction considering the question later... but it would not be a reason to say that the decision was rendered per incuriam and liable to be ignored.” Similarly, a failure to cite an authority or a fallacious reasoning does not automatically render a decision per incuriam (Jabalpur Bus Operators Association And Others v. State Of M.P And Others, 2002 SCC ONLINE MP 631, Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2002, quoting Salmond's Jurisprudence).

Application of the Doctrine by Indian Courts

The Indian judiciary, at both the Supreme Court and High Court levels, has applied and interpreted the doctrine of per incuriam on numerous occasions, emphasizing its exceptional nature and the need for judicial discipline.

Supreme Court's Stance

The Supreme Court has invoked the doctrine of per incuriam with respect to its own previous decisions, albeit rarely. In A.R Antulay v. R.S Nayak And Another (1988 SCC 2 602, Supreme Court Of India, 1988), the Supreme Court recalled its earlier direction transferring a case from a Special Judge to the High Court, holding that the direction was issued per incuriam as it violated the exclusive jurisdiction of Special Judges under Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, and infringed the appellant's fundamental rights.

In Hyder Consulting (Uk) Limited v. Governor, State Of Orissa Through Chief Engineer . (2015 SCC 2 189, Supreme Court Of India, 2014), the Court found that the decision in Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federation Limited v. Three Circles was per incuriam as it had erroneously interpreted McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. regarding the award of compound interest.

The Supreme Court has also provided guidance on how benches should approach a potentially per incuriam decision of a coordinate bench. In Central Board Of Dawoodi Bohra Community And Another v. State Of Maharashtra And Another (2005 SCC 2 673, Supreme Court Of India, 2004), it was emphasized that if a bench doubts the correctness of a decision of a coordinate bench or a larger bench (if the doubt pertains to a decision of a smaller bench being contrary to a larger bench's ruling), the proper course is to refer the matter to a larger bench. This principle was also highlighted in Mineral Area Development Authority And Others v. Steel Authority Of India And Others (2011 SCC 4 450, Supreme Court Of India, 2011). The Court in State Of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer Alias Kalika Singh And Others (2003) strongly deprecated the "easy course of saying that earlier decision was rendered per incuriam" by a coordinate bench, stating that the matter must be resolved either by following the earlier decision or referring it to a larger bench.

The Court has also cautioned against casual invocation of the doctrine. In Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd. . (2001 SCC 6 356, Supreme Court Of India, 2001), it was held that “unless it is a glaring case of obtrusive omission, it is not desirable to depend on the principle of judgment per incuriam; it has to be shown that some part of the decision was based on a reasoning which was demonstrably wrong.” This was also noted in Irfana Ahmad v. State Of J&K And Another (Jammu and Kashmir High Court, 2018).

In Punjab Land Development And Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh And Others (1990 SCC 3 682, Supreme Court Of India, 1990), the Supreme Court explained that a decision can be said to be given per incuriam when the Court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own. This case, along with A.R. Antulay, is often cited by lower courts for the definition and application of the doctrine (e.g., Mr.Paresh Kumar Shrimali Son of late Mr.Parsuram Shrimali v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Central Administrative Tribunal, 2016).

Conversely, the Supreme Court has also dismissed claims that its precedents were per incuriam, thereby affirming their binding nature, as seen in Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State Of Maharashtra And Another (2014 SCC 16 623, Supreme Court Of India, 2014).

High Courts' Application and Interpretation

High Courts in India have consistently applied the doctrine following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. They recognize that a decision of a High Court rendered in ignorance of a Supreme Court judgment is per incuriam (Irfana Ahmad v. State Of J&K And Another, 2018). However, a High Court cannot declare a judgment of the Supreme Court as per incuriam (Jabalpur Bus Operators Association And Others v. State Of M.P And Others, 2002). The doctrine applies more appropriately to decisions of concurrent courts.

High Courts have also applied the doctrine to their own previous decisions or decisions of coordinate benches when a clear oversight of a binding statute or precedent is established (e.g., K.R Lakshman v. State Of Karnataka And Others, 1995 SCC ONLINE KAR 148, Karnataka High Court, 1995, suggesting a decision rendered without considering material provisions can be per incuriam).

The limited scope of the doctrine is reiterated by High Courts. For example, Krishan Kumar Singla v. The State Of Haryana And Ors (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 1999) held that a judgment cannot be termed per incuriam if relevant aspects, including amendments and their retrospectivity, were considered, even if a counsel later omits to bring specific paragraphs to the notice of a judge.

The definition from Huddersfield Police Authority v. Watson (1947 2 All E.R. 193), describing per incuriam decisions as those given "in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority binding on the Court concerned," is often cited (Kanta Parihar v. State Of Rajasthan And Others, 1999; Kranth Sangram Parishath v. N. Janardhan Reddy, 1992).

Consequences of a Decision Being Per Incuriam

A judgment rendered per incuriam is not considered binding precedent. As stated in State Of U.P And Another v. Synthetics And Chemicals Ltd. And Another (1991), such a decision is "avoided and ignored" as it is not "quotable in law." This means it does not form part of the authoritative body of case law that courts are obliged to follow.

While a per incuriam decision can be disregarded, this power must be exercised with caution, especially by lower courts concerning decisions of higher courts. The Supreme Court itself can rectify its per incuriam decisions or lay down the law afresh if two or more of its earlier judgments cannot stand together (Punjab Land Development And Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh And Others, 1990, as noted in Irfana Ahmad v. State Of J&K And Another, 2018).

Limitations and Judicial Discipline

The doctrine of per incuriam is one of limited application and must be invoked sparingly and with great caution to maintain judicial discipline and the certainty of law.

Judicial decorum and legal propriety form the basis of judicial procedure and must be respected (State Of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer Alias Kalika Singh And Others, 2003).

Per Incuriam v. Sub Silentio

The doctrine of per incuriam is related to, but distinct from, decisions passed sub silentio. A decision is passed sub silentio when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the court or not brought to its attention. Such decisions, like those per incuriam, are generally not considered binding precedents. The Orissa High Court in Union Of India (Uoi), Through The ... v. Union Of India (Uoi), Through The (Orissa High Court, 1998) noted that "precedents sub-silentio and without argument are of no moment" and "A decision which is not express and is not founded on reasons nor it proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect." The Kerala High Court in Raman Gopi & Anr. v. Kunju Raman Uthaman (Kerala High Court, 2011) also discussed the rule of sub silentio in conjunction with per incuriam, referencing the Supreme Court's explanation in the context of Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. (1990).

Conclusion

The doctrine of per incuriam serves as an essential, though exceptional, component of India's hierarchical judicial system. It acts as a vital safeguard against the perpetuation of errors that arise from judicial oversight of binding statutes or precedents. While it allows for flexibility and the correction of manifest injustices, its application is strictly circumscribed to prevent undermining the principle of stare decisis, which ensures consistency, predictability, and stability in the law. The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has consistently emphasized that the doctrine must be applied with utmost caution, adhering to principles of judicial discipline and propriety. The preferred course, especially for coordinate benches, when doubting an earlier decision, is to refer the matter to a larger bench rather than readily branding a decision as per incuriam. This balanced approach ensures that while the law remains adaptable to correct clear oversights, the foundational principles of judicial precedent and hierarchy are respected, thereby maintaining the integrity and coherence of Indian jurisprudence.