‘Incuria’ literally means ‘carelessness’ and the phrase ‘per incuriam’ is used to describe judgments that are delivered with ignorance of some statute or rule. Per incuriam decisions do not have binding effect. Per incuriam decisions mean where the court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or of a court of coordinate jurisdiction or when the decision is given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or a rule having statutory force.
It is well-settled in the English doctrine of precedents that a judgement rendered in ignorance of a statute, or a rule having statutory force, which would have affected the result is not binding on a court otherwise bound by its own decisions.
In London Street Tramways Co. V. London County Council,[1] the House of Lords recognized that this kind of judgment turned into an exception to the rule of thumb that the House of Lords become sincerely sure by using its personal judgments.
The identical exception changed into recognized by the Court of Appeal in the Bristol Aeroplane case[2] –The courtroom gave the reason “It can’t be proper to mention that during such a case the court is entitled to brush aside the statutory provision and is bound to observe a selection of its very own when that provision become not gift to its mind. Cases of this description are examples of choices given in keeping with incuriam.”
Read – Judicial Independence Over Judicial Overreach
The Court of Appeal in Morelle Ltd v. Wakeling [3] said that as a general rule the most effective cases in which decisions need to be held to have been given in keeping with incuriam are the ones of selections given in lack of knowledge or forgetfulness of a few inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority binding on the court involved: so that in such cases some part of the choice or some step inside the reasoning on which it is based totally is determined, on that account, to be demonstrably incorrect.
The law is equal in India and a judgment rendered in lack of know-how of a relevant constitutional or statutory provision isn’t binding upon any court docket in India.
The Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer alias Kalika Singh & others[4] held that :
“A selection is given in step with incuriam whilst the court has acted in lack of awareness of a previous choice of its personal or of a court of coordinate jurisdiction which covered the case before it, in which case it have to decide which case to follow; or while it has acted in lack of knowledge of House of Lords choice, wherein case it need to follow that selections; or when the decision is given in ignorance of the phrases of a statute or rule having statutory pressure.”
CONFLICTING DECISIONS OF DIFFERENT STRENGTH
If there’s war among the decision of lesser bench, then law laid down by using the bigger bench might be binding. In this regard the Five Judges Constitution Bench of Honourable Supreme Court in case of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, [5] has located that:
“The law laid down by this Court in a selection introduced by means of a Bench of larger electricity is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or coequal strength”.
This view is also accompanied by Honourable Bombay High Court in case of Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. V. Syeda Aleemunbee w/o. Syed Razaq [6]. To quote Honourable Bombay High Court:
“28) It is properly settled, judicial method demands that a choose moves within the framework of applicable legal rules and the coveted modes of these for ascertaining them. The judicial gown has its in-built subject, which mandates, for a High Court to stick in tune with the precedent of Supreme Court and specifically of the bigger Benches. This is extra so, if there are divergent views by means of Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court, on equal troubles.”
Effect of orders of higher courts:
Any intervening time order exceeded even through the Supreme Court is restricted to that particular case and ought to now not be used as precedent for different cases especially when the Supreme Court itself has earlier authoritatively decided the query which is squarely worried inside the later case.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in Megh Singh v. State of Punjab[7] has held that:
“Circumstantial flexibility, one extra or one of a kind reality may also make a global of distinction between end in two instances or between accused within the equal case. Each case depends on its own facts and a near similarity between one case and every other is not enough because a unmarried sizeable element might also regulate the entire factor.”
IMPORTANCE OF DISSENTING JUDGEMENTS
The significance of dissenting judgments became mentioned in detail inside the English case of Smith v. Central Asbestos Co. Ltd[8] –(additionally known as the Dodd’s case), and later inside the case of In Re Harper v. NCB.[9] In the Dodd’s case, Lord Denning said that:
‘We can most effective depend upon the reasoning which the majority relied upon to supply the judgment. We can’t use the reasoning of the minority, because it ought to be wrong, as they have come to the wrong judgment’. The motive behind that is that, a dissenting judgment precious and important, though it can cannot count as part of the ratio, for it played no element in the court’s achieving their choice. This opinion of Lord Denning as been substantially criticised.
Read – Precedent Origin And Stare Decesis
We undertake a special principle in India, regarding the importance of dissenting judgments. Article one hundred forty five[10] truely gives judges the strength to differ from most people and deliver their very own judgment, whilst some of cases over the years have installed that even though dissenting judgments aren’t binding upon the courtroom, they have tremendous persuasive fee.
When there may be only one query before the Court, wherein the judges agree on a preferred precept of regulation, but range as to its unique utility inside the case, the ratio of the case need to be diagnosed and that alone is binding.
In the Delhi Laws case[11], numerous kinds of delegation turned into upheld via the judges, but no precept might be deduced from it as all of the judges delivered specific evaluations. If a sample can be recognized from this sort of case, that on my own would be binding in subsequent instances.
The importance of dissenting judgments is best summed up by the following lines, where the court held:
“While it is regrettable that judges may not always agree, it is better that their independence should be maintained and recognized, than that unanimity should be secured through sacrifice. A dissent in the court of last resort is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error which the dissenting judge believes the court to have made.” Dissenting judgments thus can always be used for persuasive value. [12]
[1] (1973) AC 518.
[2] (1974) 2 WLR 775.
[3] Constitution of India, 1950.
[4] (1955) 1 SCR 298.
[5] AIR 1976 SC 1207.
[6] (2005) 2 SCC 673.
[7] First Civil Appeal No. 1611 of 2013, decided on 03.03.2014,
[8] AIR 2003 SC 3184.
[9] (1898) AC 375.
[10] (1944) 1KB 718.
[11](1955) 1 All ER 708, [1955] 2 QB 379.
[12] (2003) 5 SCC 448.
