Per incuriam

A decision is said to be per incuriam when it is rendered in ignorance or forgetfulness of a statutory provision, or of a binding precedent, that would have led to a different result. The doctrine is an exception to the rule of stare decisis. Under Article 141 of the Constitution the law declared by the Supreme Court binds all courts in India, but a judgment that overlooked binding law is not treated as having declared the law on that point and need not be followed as a precedent.

The doctrine is applied narrowly. A decision is not per incuriam merely because it is thought wrong, because an argument was not advanced, or because its reasoning is weak. It applies where a binding statute or rule was overlooked, or where a bench ignored a decision of a larger bench or of a bench of equal strength that bound it. A bench of smaller strength should not itself declare a decision of a larger bench per incuriam; the proper course is to refer the question to a larger bench.

The Supreme Court has used the doctrine on several occasions. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2010) decisions of smaller benches that ignored the Constitution Bench ruling in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia on anticipatory bail were held per incuriam. In Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, which had excluded terrorism cases from the delay ground for commutation, was held per incuriam. In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) Tomaso Bruno was held per incuriam for not following Anvar P.V. on certificates for electronic evidence.

The doctrine is distinct from obiter dictum, which is a non-binding observation, and from overruling, which is done by a larger bench. Examiners ask for its meaning and when a decision qualifies.