Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Chief Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narsimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Manoj Misra laid down the principles when a judgment can be declared as per incuriam.

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Rambha Devi & Ors.

What was the Background of M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Rambha Devi & Ors. Case?

• The legal journey of the present case is as follows:

• The following issues came for consideration before the Court:

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court made the following observations:
  • For the purposes of licensing the Light Motor Vehicles (LMV) and ‘Transport Vehicle’ are not separate classes. Thus, a driver holding a license for LMV class for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization under Section 10 (2) (e) of the MV Act.
  • The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle,’ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.
  • The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving ‘transport vehicles’ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’.
  • The decision in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment.

What is Judgment Per Incuriam?

• About:
• The term per incuriam is a Latin term which means ‘by inadvertence’ or ‘lack of care’.
• The English Courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis.
• In the case of Morelle Ld v. Wakeling (1955), the Court held that as a general rule the following decisions should be held to have been given per incuriam:
  • Decisions given in ignorance of some inconsistent statutory provisions.
  • Or some authority binding on the Court concerned.
• The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd v. State of Bihar (1955) adopted the per incuriam principle.
  • The Court held in this case that while Article 141 states that the decisions of the Supreme Court are “binding on all Courts within the territory of India”.
  • The above, however, does not extend to the Supreme Court which remains free to re-consider it’s judgments in appropriate cases.

Principles to be Followed for Judgment Per Incuriam:

• The following principles are to be followed:
  • A decision is per incuriam only when the overlooked statutory provision or legal precedent is central to the legal issue in question.
    • It must be inconsistent provision and a glaring case of obtrusive omission.
    • This doctrine applies to only ratio decidendi and does not apply to obiter dicta.
  • 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.
  • For applying this doctrine, it has to be shown that some part of the decision is based on a reasoning which was demonstrably wrong.
    • 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.

Landmark Judgments:

• Mamleshwar Prasad v. Kanhaiya Lal (1975):
  • In exceptional instances, whereby obvious inadvertence or oversight a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, it may not have the sway of binding precedents.
  • It should be a glaring case, an obtrusive omission.
• A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988):
  • “Per incuriam” are those decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority binding on the court concerned, so that in such cases some part of the decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is based, is found, on that account to be demonstrably wrong.
• MCD v. Gurnam Kaur (1989):
  • A decision should be treated as given per incuriam when it is given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or of a rule having the force of a statute.