Not Every Flaw Is Fatal: Supreme Court Draws The Line On When A Verdict Turns 'Per Incuriam'

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a judgment can be declared per incuriam only in narrow circumstances: when its ratio conflicts with an earlier ruling of an equal or larger bench, or when it ignored a relevant statute or binding precedent central to the outcome. Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh clarified the doctrine is a limited exception to stare decisis, not a tool to bypass precedent simply because a later bench disagrees with its reasoning.

Read full article

Not Every Flaw Is Fatal: Supreme Court Draws The Line On When A Verdict Turns 'Per Incuriam'

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a judgment can be labelled 'per incuriam' only in narrow, well-defined circumstances, cautioning that the doctrine cannot be used as a routine tool to escape binding precedent. A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N.K. Singh held that the exception operates strictly within the boundaries of judicial discipline.

What The Court Held

The bench explained that a decision may be declared per incuriam if its ratio is irreconcilable with an earlier ruling delivered by a bench of equal or larger strength, or if it was rendered without considering a relevant statutory provision or binding precedent that had a direct bearing on the outcome. The Court underlined that per incuriam is meant to be an exception to the rule of stare decisis, not a substitute for disagreement with a precedent's reasoning.

Why The Doctrine Exists

Per incuriam, literally meaning 'through want of care', allows courts to treat an earlier ruling as non-binding when it was passed in ignorance of a relevant statute or an authoritative decision that would have altered the outcome. Courts have long held that the flaw must go to the heart of the ratio decidendi, not a passing observation, and must involve a glaring, obtrusive omission rather than a debatable interpretation.

The Supreme Court has previously cautioned that the doctrine cannot be invoked simply because a later bench finds an earlier view unpersuasive. If a bench doubts the correctness of a binding precedent, the appropriate course is either to follow it or refer the question to a larger bench, rather than unilaterally declaring it per incuriam.

Limited To The Ratio, Not Every Observation

The Court also reiterated a settled principle: the per incuriam rule applies only to the ratio decidendi of a judgment, and not to every observation or comment made in the course of the ruling. An omission becomes fatal only when the overlooked provision or precedent was central to the issue in question and could plausibly have changed the result had it been considered.

Why It Matters

The ruling comes amid a series of recent cases where litigants have sought to bypass binding precedents by labelling them per incuriam, including disputes over remission policy and motor vehicle insurance claims. By reaffirming a strict, narrow test, the Supreme Court has sought to preserve the certainty and hierarchy that stare decisis is meant to protect, while leaving room for correcting judgments that were genuinely passed in ignorance of the law.