Per Incuriam Indian Law

In R v Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal ex parte Shaw [1951] 1 All ER 268, a Divisional Court of the King`s Bench Division refused to follow a decision of the Court of Appeal on the ground that the decision had been made per incuriam because it had not been based on a relevant decision of the House of Lords. Per incuriam, literally translated as “lack of care,” is an instrument of the common law system of judicial precedents. The determination of per incuriam means that a previous court decision did not comply with the relevant legal provisions or precedents. `A judgment may be given per incuriam if the registered court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision on its part or if a lower court has acted in ignorance of a decision of the registered court. As regards the judgments delivered by incuriam by that court, it cannot be held that that court `declared the law` in a particular object if the law at issue was not duly taken into account by that court in its decision. In the case of Punjab Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd.c. the Chairman of the Labour Court (Chandigarh), the court noted that in situations where the problem of per incuriam arises, there should be no difficulties, the Supreme Court may redefine the law. It was decided that disregarding irrelevant statues could not constitute the report for a judgment according to negligence. 1. When can a decision or judgment be qualified as “per incuriam”? 2.

Can a “per incuriam” decision be considered “final”? 3. Can a per incuriam decision serve as a precedent? 4. What is the link between the doctrine of “per incuriam” and the concept of “judicial discipline”? 5. Strange case of appeal to the decisions “per incuriam” of the Bar Association. In Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd.c. Jindal Exports Ltd., it was held that, in order to establish a case of negligence, it was necessary to show that part of the judgment was erroneous. Therefore, a judgment rendered without argument, reference and quotations is per incuriam. Some academic critics have suggested that Re Polemis[1] was decided by incuriam because it was not based on the earlier decision of Hadley v Baxendale in 1854. Similarly, others[2] have suggested that Foakes v Beer[3] was decided by negligence because it did not take note of the recent decision of the House of Lords in Hughes v.

metropolitan Railway Co in 1877. [4] “Per incuriam” means “for lack of care”; a court decision that is wrong. The rule of incuriam is strictly and correctly applicable to the ratio decidendi and not to the obiter dicta. …… In Halsbury`s Laws of England (4th edition), vol. 26: Judgments and Orders: Judicial Decisions as Authorities (pp. 26) 297-98, paragraph 578) per incuriam was explained as follows: The meaning of a judgment rendered by incuriam is that it does not have to be followed as a precedent by a lower court. Normally, at common law, the rations of a judgment must then be followed by the lower courts when similar cases are heard. However, a lower court is free to depart from an earlier judgment of a higher court if that earlier judgment was rendered by negligence. This doctrine is also an exception to Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, which embodies the doctrine of precedents in law. `The per incuriam rule may be applied where a court does not take into account a binding precedent of the same or higher court established on the same issue, or where a court does not take into account a law when ruling on that question.` More recently in the case of Dr. Shah Faesal and Ors.

v. Union of India And Anr, the Court confirmed the importance of the doctrine of precedents and Stare Decisis as fundamental values of the legal system, stating that this applies per incuriam only to the relationship of the case. The exception of per incuriam to the previous one can be understood in two ways. Per incuriam means “negligence”, although in practice it is understood as by ignoratium, which means ignorance of the law. When the courts ignore the laws and render a judgment, that decision falls within the spectrum of per incuriam and does not necessarily have to be followed. Per incuriam is a court decision that is wrong. The one who ignores a contradictory law or a binding authority and who is therefore poorly decided and without violence. A judgment rendered by incuriam does not have to be followed by a lower court as a precedent. In criminal cases, a decision taken per incuriam usually leads to the annulment of the conviction. This doctrine is an exception to Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, which enshrines legal precedents. In such a case, he may invoke the principle of “per incuriam” and claim that the judgment is ignored because it does not determine the correct legal situation.

Illustration: If Case No. 101 was presented in such a way that the court did not take into account the earlier enforceable decision in Case No. 80, it is assumed to be per incuriam. If the decision ignored Case No. 80 but was based on another relevant case, Case No. 76, the Court`s decision in Case No. 101 cannot be characterized as incuriam. If a case, Case No. 119, ignores a judgment at all and also ignores the existing law, it is called per incuriam. This research focuses on the following 5 (five) aspects related to the teaching of “per incuriam”: This teaching also promotes the scope of legal force.

Nevertheless, there is an important difference between the authority of res judicata and the functus officio, while the authority of res judicata deals with the termination of a case and prevents the reopening of the case, per incuriam refers to the expiry of an office and the authority of the official, which renders the Office incapable of taking the case. 149. The analysis of English and Indian law clearly leads to the irresistible conclusion that not only is the assessment of greater force binding for a judgment of inferior force, but also the judgment of a judgment of equal force, which binds a bench of judges of equal force. In the present case, the judgments referred to in paragraphs 135 and 136 are delivered by two or three judges of the present court. These judgments clearly ignored a constitutional decision of this court in Sibbia (see above), which dealt exhaustively with all facets of early bail listed in section 438 P.C..C. Consequently, the judgments referred to in paragraphs 135 and 136 of the present judgment are per incuriam. In addition, the decision would also be considered misunderstood if it is not consistent with Supreme Court precedents. The concept of per incuriam was examined in Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd.c. State of Orissa[7], where it was rendered: If the court`s decision is rendered by incurium, it is not a binding precedent and therefore does not need to be followed by the lower courts as a general rule.

If a judgment is pronounced without giving the necessary attention to the competent authorities or laws, it is said to be poorly decided and therefore has no legal value. If a decision is made to the incorrigible in criminal cases, this usually leads to the annulment of the conviction. The Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. The state of Maharashtra2 refused to follow the decision of the coordination benches, which was contrary to the decision of a former constitutional chamber. The Supreme Court explained the concept of “per incuriam” as follows: The Court`s decision can be described as per incuriam if the following is present: The Court of Appeal in Morelle Ltd v Wakeling [1955] 2 QB 379 stated that, as a general rule, the only cases in which decisions should have been rendered by negligence are decisions, who have been encountered in ignorance or forgetfulness of certain contradictory things. legislation or power binding on the court concerned, so that, in such cases, part of the decision or a stage of the statement of reasons on which it is based is therefore considered manifestly erroneous ….