When Can A Judgment Be Held Per Incurium? Supreme Court Explains

In the judgment relating to LMV driving license, the Supreme Court explained when can a judgment be held as per incurium.

A 5-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra was deciding a reference which doubted the 2017 Mukund Dewangan decision.

While addressing the argument that the Mukud Dewangan decision was per incurium, the judgment authored by Justice Roy discussed when can a judgment be held as per incurious.

The judgment laid down the following non-exhaustive factors:

(i) A decision is per incuriam only when the overlooked statutory provision or legal precedent is central to the legal issue in question and might have led to a different outcome if those overlooked provisions were considered. It must be an inconsistent provision and a glaring case of obtrusive omission.

(ii) The doctrine of per incuriam applies strictly to the ratio decidendi and does not apply to obiter dicta.

(iii)If a court doubts the correctness of a precedent, the appropriate step is to either follow the decision or refer it to a larger Bench for reconsideration.

(iv)It has to be shown that some part of the decision was based on a reasoning which was demonstrably wrong, for applying the principle of per incuriam. In exceptional instances, where by obvious inadvertence or oversight, a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, the principle of per incuriam may apply.

Though the Court opined that Mukund Dewangan overlooked certain aspects of the Motor Vehicles Act, they were not material provisions affecting the final outcome.

Other reports about the judgment can be read here.

Case Details : M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. v. RAMBHA DEVI & ORS. | Civil Appeal No(s).841/2018