In an important judgment reaffirming the constitutional architecture of judicial precedent, the Supreme Court has comprehensively explained the limited circumstances in which an earlier judgment may be declared per incuriam, cautioning that the doctrine remains a narrow exception to the settled principle of stare decisis. The Court held that a judicial decision can be branded per incuriam only where its ratio is irreconcilable with an earlier decision rendered by a Bench of co-equal or larger strength, or where the judgment was delivered in ignorance of a binding statutory provision or a governing rule that directly affected the outcome of the case. Stressing that the doctrine cannot be invoked casually to avoid an inconvenient precedent, the Bench observed that judicial certainty, institutional discipline and consistency in the law demand that per incuriam be applied sparingly and only in exceptional situations.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh while deciding an appeal arising from a remission dispute under the remission policies framed by the State of Haryana. During the proceedings, the Court was called upon to examine whether its earlier decision in State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar (2021) could continue to hold the field despite an apparent inconsistency with the larger Bench decision in State of Haryana v. Jagdish. The issue required the Court to revisit one of the most fundamental principles governing common law adjudication the binding nature of judicial precedents under Article 141 of the Constitution and the circumstances under which an earlier judgment loses its precedential authority.
After analysing the competing precedents, the Supreme Court concluded that the 2021 decision in Raj Kumar was per incuriam because it was inconsistent with the ratio laid down earlier by the three-Judge Bench in Jagdish. The Court reiterated that the doctrine of per incuriam is not an instrument to reconsider every doubtful or allegedly erroneous judgment. Rather, it is a corrective mechanism designed to preserve the coherence of the legal system where a court has inadvertently overlooked binding law. Consequently, a judgment rendered in ignorance of a binding precedent or a relevant statutory provision cannot command the same precedential force ordinarily attached to decisions of constitutional courts.
The Bench undertook an elaborate survey of earlier Supreme Court authorities governing the doctrine and crystallised the governing principles. It held that a judgment may legitimately be regarded as per incuriam when its ratio decidendi cannot be reconciled with an earlier decision delivered by a Bench of equal or larger numerical strength, or where the court failed to notice a statutory provision, rule or regulation that was directly applicable to the controversy before it. Importantly, the Court clarified that the doctrine attaches only to the binding ratio decidendi of a judgment and not to observations made obiter dicta. This distinction is crucial because only the ratio constitutes binding law under Article 141, whereas incidental observations, however persuasive, do not possess mandatory precedential force.
One of the most significant observations of the judgment concerns the relationship between per incuriam and judicial discipline. The Court emphasised that if a Bench of co-equal strength disagrees with an earlier decision, judicial propriety requires that the matter be referred to a larger Bench instead of delivering a contradictory ruling. A coordinate Bench, the Court observed, cannot effectively overrule another Bench of equal strength by simply taking a different legal view. Such an approach would undermine institutional consistency and erode public confidence in the certainty of judicial decisions. The judgment therefore reinforces the long-settled principle that disagreement is not a licence to disregard precedent; the proper constitutional course is to seek authoritative resolution from a larger Bench.
Clarifying another recurring misconception, the Supreme Court observed that the binding force of a precedent depends upon the strength of the Bench rather than the number of judges who happen to subscribe to a particular legal proposition in subsequent cases. Thus, a judgment rendered by a larger Bench continues to prevail even if several later decisions of smaller Benches appear to adopt a different approach. This reiteration assumes considerable institutional importance because conflicting decisions often create uncertainty before trial courts and High Courts regarding which precedent deserves precedence. By reaffirming the primacy of Bench strength, the Court has reinforced one of the cardinal rules governing the doctrine of precedent in Indian constitutional law.
Equally noteworthy are the Court’s observations explaining when a judgment cannot be characterised as per incuriam. The Bench clarified that a decision does not become per incuriam merely because another Bench considers it to be legally incorrect or because an alternative interpretation of the law appears preferable. Nor can a judgment be branded per incuriam simply because it refers to an earlier precedent and arrives at a conclusion that another court believes to be erroneous. Unless there exists a demonstrable failure to notice binding law or an irreconcilable conflict with a larger Bench decision, the doctrine has no application. Courts, therefore, must resist the temptation to invoke per incuriam as a substitute for appellate disagreement or judicial preference.
The controversy before the Court arose in the context of remission policies framed by the State of Haryana under Article 161 of the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The earlier three-Judge Bench in State of Haryana v. Jagdish had held that the remission policy framed under the Governor’s constitutional powers could not be displaced by a subsequent statutory remission policy. However, the later judgment in Raj Kumar adopted an approach that the present Bench found inconsistent with the larger Bench ruling. Applying the settled principles of judicial discipline, the Court concluded that the earlier larger Bench judgment continued to constitute binding law, rendering the later inconsistent decision per incuriam.
From a jurisprudential perspective, the decision is a significant reaffirmation of the doctrine of stare decisis, which forms one of the cornerstones of the common law system. The principle requires courts to follow previously settled legal propositions in order to promote certainty, predictability and equality before the law. Without adherence to precedent, identical disputes could produce inconsistent judicial outcomes depending upon the Bench hearing the matter, thereby undermining both legal certainty and public confidence in the administration of justice. The doctrine of per incuriam operates as a carefully circumscribed exception, permitting departure only where the integrity of precedent has already been compromised through inadvertent judicial oversight.
The ruling also assumes practical importance for High Courts and subordinate courts across the country. Trial courts frequently encounter competing Supreme Court decisions that appear difficult to reconcile. The present judgment provides much-needed guidance by reiterating that lower courts cannot disregard a larger Bench decision merely because a later smaller Bench has expressed a different view. Where such conflicts arise, judicial discipline requires continued adherence to the larger Bench judgment until the Supreme Court itself authoritatively resolves the inconsistency through an appropriately constituted Bench. This clarification is likely to reduce uncertainty in the application of precedent and strengthen doctrinal consistency across judicial forums.
The judgment further reinforces the constitutional significance of Article 141, under which the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India. The Court’s reasoning demonstrates that Article 141 is not merely a provision establishing hierarchical authority; it is equally a mechanism for ensuring institutional coherence within the judicial system. By carefully limiting the circumstances in which a precedent may be disregarded as per incuriam, the Supreme Court has protected the stability of the legal system while preserving a narrowly tailored corrective mechanism for exceptional cases involving demonstrable judicial oversight.
Ultimately, the decision serves as an important reminder that judicial precedent is not a matter of convenience but an institutional obligation essential to the rule of law. By reaffirming that per incuriam remains an exceptional doctrine rather than an alternative route for revisiting settled law, the Supreme Court has strengthened the principles of judicial discipline, constitutional consistency and institutional continuity. In doing so, the Court has reinforced one of the foundational values of the Indian legal system that certainty in the law is achieved not through individual judicial preferences but through faithful adherence to precedent, respect for Bench hierarchy and disciplined constitutional adjudication.
