Per incuriam – Because of lack of care.
Meaning of Per Incuriam
Per Incuriam is a Latin term which literally means “through lack of care” or “by mistake.” In legal context, it refers to a judgment delivered by a court in ignorance or forgetfulness of a statute, binding precedent, or rule of law, which if had been considered, might have led to a different decision.
Essentially:
If a court overlooks statutory provisions or binding precedents, the judgment is said to be per incuriam.
Such decisions do not bind future courts, even if delivered by a higher court.
Key Points
A decision is per incuriam only when the court completely overlooks a relevant statutory provision or a binding precedent.
Mere disagreement with a decision or difference in interpretation does not make it per incuriam.
The doctrine applies mainly to judgments from higher courts that would normally be binding.
Case Laws on Per Incuriam
1. R.C. Cooper v Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564
Facts: The Supreme Court examined whether certain provisions of the Constitution (17th Amendment) violated the Constitution.
Observation: The Court stated that decisions delivered per incuriam are not binding on future cases.
Principle: The Court emphasized that a judgment ignoring statutory law or a binding precedent falls under per incuriam.
2. A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
Facts: This case dealt with preventive detention under the Constitution.
Observation: Later judgments held that some observations in this case were per incuriam because the earlier Court overlooked some fundamental rights provisions.
3. Keshav Singh v Speaker, Legislative Assembly of UP, AIR 1965 SC 745
Principle Applied: The Supreme Court held that a decision rendered in ignorance of a statutory provision or binding precedent is per incuriam.
4. R. v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal (1952) 1 All ER 772
Facts: The court overlooked certain statutory provisions while delivering its decision.
Holding: The decision was held per incuriam, meaning it does not create binding precedent.
Illustration
Suppose Supreme Court overlooks a binding statutory provision while deciding a case.
Example: If Court ignores Section 14 of Contract Act, 1872 in a contract dispute where it is directly relevant, that judgment may be considered per incuriam.
Distinguishing Per Incuriam
Per Incuriam vs. Obiter Dicta
Obiter Dicta: Remarks made by a judge not necessary to the decision.
Per Incuriam: Judgment itself is wrong because the Court overlooked a binding law.
Per Incuriam vs. Erroneous Decision
Mistake due to oversight of law → Per Incuriam
Mistake in reasoning, interpretation → Not per incuriam
External Law Reference
Indian Constitution & Precedents:
Article 141: The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts.
Exception: Judgments per incuriam do not bind courts.
English Law:
Principle established in R. v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal (1952).
Also discussed in Reigate v Union Manufacturing Co (1918) regarding oversight of statutory provisions.
✅ Conclusion:
A judgment is said to be per incuriam if it was delivered through lack of care, ignoring a statutory provision or binding precedent. Such a judgment is not binding on future courts. The doctrine ensures that important statutory laws or prior binding decisions are not ignored, maintaining the integrity of the legal system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments