๐ฃ๐ฒ๐ฟย ๐๐ป๐ฐ๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฎ๐บ:ย ๐ย ๐๐ฒ๐ด๐ฎ๐นย ๐๐ผ๐บ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐๐ย ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟย ๐๐ป๐๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ดย ๐๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฎ๐นย ๐๐ผ๐ป๐๐ถ๐๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐
The recent Constitution Bench (5 judges) inย ๐๐ฎ๐ท๐ฎ๐ทย ๐๐น๐น๐ถ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒย ๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐นย ๐๐ป๐๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒย ๐๐ผ.ย ๐๐๐ฑ. [๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฐย ๐๐ก๐ฆ๐ย ๐ด๐ฐ๐ฌ] discussed a fundamental yet nuanced doctrine in legal jurisprudence:ย ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ณย ๐ช๐ฏ๐ค๐ถ๐ณ๐ช๐ข๐ฎ. This case provides insights into when a precedent may be labeled per incuriam and how this principle safeguards the sanctity of legal precedents.
๐จ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ดย ๐๐๐งย ๐๐ฃ๐๐ช๐ง๐๐๐ข
๐๐ฆ๐ณย ๐ช๐ฏ๐ค๐ถ๐ณ๐ช๐ข๐ฎ, Latin for “through lack of care,” applies when a judgment overlooks binding precedent or statutory provisions. This doctrine ensures that judicial decisions respect hierarchical authority and legislative will. It’s not just a technicalityโit is foundational to preserving consistency, stability, and fairness in a legal system governed by the rule of law.
๐๐ฒ๐ย ๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ๐ย ๐๐น๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ฑย ๐ฏ๐ย ๐๐ต๐ฒย ๐ฆ๐๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒย ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐
๐ญ.ย ๐ก๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ย ๐๐ฝ๐ฝ๐น๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป: A decision is per incuriam only if it overlooks statutory provisions or binding precedents central to the issue, leading to potentially different outcomes. Mere omissions or failure to cite are insufficient unless they create “glaring obtrusive omissions” or inconsistencies.
๐ฎ.ย ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผย ๐๐.ย ๐ข๐ฏ๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ: The doctrine is confined strictly to the ratio decidendi (the legal reasoning essential to the decision) and does not extend to obiter dicta (comments made in passing).
๐ฏ.ย ๐๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฎ๐นย ๐๐ถ๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฝ๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ: When a court doubts a precedent, it should either adhere to it or refer the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration.
๐ฐ.ย ๐๐
๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐นย ๐ ๐ถ๐๐๐๐ฒ๐ฝ๐: The principle applies in cases of demonstrable judicial oversight or inadvertence, particularly when statutes or precedents that contradict the reasoning are plainly ignored.
๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ป๐ย ๐ง๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐ย ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑย ๐๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฎ๐นย ๐๐ถ๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฝ๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ
Sometimes, a concerning trend is noted where tribunals and lower courts, seeking to bypass binding precedent, by increasingly invoking per incuriam doctrine by introducing unargued principles. This judgment firmly reins in such tendencies, reinforcing that judicial discipline must be observed to avoid destabilizing the doctrine of precedent.
๐ฅ๐ฒ๐น๐ฒ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒย ๐ถ๐ปย ๐ง๐ฎ๐
๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป
Taxation laws frequently evolve through judicial pronouncements which involves complex statutes and precedents. However, a single erroneous judgmentโleft uncheckedโcan lead to significant revenue leakage or undue taxpayer hardship.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒย ๐ฅ๐ผ๐ฎ๐ฑย ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฑ:ย ๐๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ดย ๐๐ด๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ย ๐๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฎ๐นย ๐ข๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ต
This judgment emphasizes the need for judicial coherence and provides a valuable framework for curbing judicial overreach. The doctrine of per incuriam is not merely a technical tool; it is a bulwark against legal uncertainty, ensuring the rule of law remains unshaken.
The copy of the order is as under:
