Definition
A judgment given 'through carelessness' or 'through ignorance' — specifically, a decision made without considering a binding statutory provision or precedent that would have led to a different result — such a decision is not binding precedent.
Per incuriam (Latin: 'through carelessness') is the exception to the normal rule of stare decisis (binding precedent). A decision is per incuriam if it was made in ignorance of a directly relevant and binding statute or precedent — and the ignored authority would have led to a different result. A per incuriam decision does not create binding precedent. Courts must have been ignorant of (not chosen to disregard) the authority — a court that consciously chose to depart from a prior decision has overruled it, not acted per incuriam. The doctrine prevents obviously erroneous decisions from becoming binding precedents, while preserving the overall system of precedent.
Statutory Definition
No statutory provision — per incuriam is a common law doctrine applied by Indian courts. The Supreme Court in <em>Union of India v. Raghubir Singh</em> AIR 1989 SC 1933 (Constitution Bench) clarified: 'A decision of a Court is not binding upon a subsequent Court when it has been made per incuriam, that is to say, in ignorance of a statute or of a rule having the force of a statute, or of a binding judicial authority.'
Etymology & Origin
Latin 'per' (through, by reason of) + 'incuriam' (accusative of 'incuria' — carelessness, negligence, from 'in' (not) + 'cura' (care)). A decision 'through carelessness' — made without the care of considering the binding authority that should have been applied.
Full Legal Analysis
Per Incuriam: The Precedent That Isn’t
The doctrine of per incuriam is the safety valve of the precedent system. Just as rationale must be followed, a wrong precedent — one made in ignorance of binding law — should not become binding merely because it was decided first. The per incuriam doctrine prevents accidental authority: a decision that would have been different if the court had known the law it was ignoring cannot require lower courts to perpetuate that ignorance.
Conditions for Per Incuriam
A decision is per incuriam only if: (a) Ignorance, not disregard: The court was genuinely unaware of the binding statute or precedent. If the court knew about the authority but chose not to follow it (a departure), that is not per incuriam — it is either an overruling (if the same or higher court) or an error (if a lower court). (b) Binding authority: The ignored authority must be binding on the court — a statute applicable to the case, or a Supreme Court precedent binding on a High Court. Ignoring persuasive (non-binding) authority does not make a decision per incuriam. (c) Different result: If the court had known of the binding authority, it would have reached a different decision. If the decision would have been the same despite the ignored authority, the error is technical and does not affect the binding force.
Invoking Per Incuriam Before Lower Courts
When a lower court is faced with a prior precedent that appears to have been decided per incuriam, it may decline to follow the per incuriam decision and instead apply the authority that was ignored. But courts are cautious: the per incuriam doctrine cannot become a routine escape from inconvenient precedents. A court should invoke per incuriam only when the ignored authority is clearly established, clearly binding, and clearly relevant — and the difference in result is demonstrable.
“A decision that was right had it known all the law is not wrong because it didn’t know the law — but it isn’t binding either. Per incuriam protects the precedent system from accidental pollution: bad decisions do not become good precedents just because a court made them without knowing better.”
