The Doctrine of Per Incuriam and its Application in Indian Law

The Doctrine of Per Incuriam and its Application in Indian Law
The Doctrine of Per Incuriam and its Application in Indian Law

By – Sangeeth Narayanan, Tanisha Lunia

The Supreme Court of India recently in the matter of M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors1. has restated the principle of per incuriam.

Indian judicial system is based on common law approach, wherein decisions rendered by courts serve as binding precedent for subsequent matters. Courts, while deciding issues, follow the principle of stare decisis, which means adhering to what has been decided earlier.

In common law, the law is settled through judicial decisions. In order to maintain the sanctity and consistency of the principles of law laid down by the courts, common law system requires courts to follow the principle of stare decisis and hence the importance of binding precedents. One of the exceptions where courts may ignore an earlier decision is when the same has been rendered per incuriam.

The term per incuriam means “by inadvertence” or “through lack of care”. A judgment is said to be rendered per incuriam when it is delivered in ignorance of a binding precedent or a statutory provision that directly applies to the facts of the case. The doctrine of per incuriam is an essential principle that ensures the continuity, integrity and coherence of judicial decisions. The doctrine allows courts to disagree with a decision in case of judicial oversight to ensure that the legal framework remains consistent de hors the occasional aberration where judgments are passed per incuriam. Courts may declare such judgments as non-binding if they undermine established legal principles. However, this principle is applied only in exceptional cases.

Bajaj Case

The Supreme Court examined whether its previous judgment in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd2. was per incuriam, considering the conflicting views in various decisions on the issue.

In the Mukund Dewangan case, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that drivers with an LMV license could operate transport vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of up to 7,500 kilograms without requiring a separate endorsement for transport vehicles.

A five-judge Constitution Bench, while examining the legal framework of the MV Act and the MV Rules in M/s. Bajaj Alliance, was required to determine whether a person holding a license for a Light Motor Vehicle could drive a ‘transport vehicle’ without a specific endorsement, provided the ‘Gross Vehicle Weight’ was up to 7,500 kg. The Constitution Bench also had to rule on the correctness of the judgment in Mukund Dewangan, which did not consider certain provisions of the MV Act and the MV Rules.

Arguments Against the Decision in Mukund Dewangan

  • The decision overlooked that a license for a ‘light motor vehicle’ cannot be used for driving a ‘transport vehicle.’
  • The minimum age requirement for obtaining a license for a transport vehicle was higher than that for a light motor vehicle.
  • Differences existed in medical certification requirements for different vehicle categories.
  • The Mukund Dewangan case focused on general law rather than special provisions within the MV Act.
  • The requirements for obtaining a transport vehicle license are more rigorous, as transport vehicle drivers are responsible for passengers’ safety, including school children and strangers.
  • The Mukund Dewangan case failed to acknowledge Form 7 endorsement for LMV license holders, who cannot legally drive transport vehicles without it.
  • The judgment led to unsafe roads by permitting untrained drivers to operate transport vehicles.
  • The ruling extended vehicle insurance policies to cases where LMV license holders drove vehicles outside their licensing permits.

Arguments in Support of Mukund Dewangan

  • Vehicles under the MV Act are categorized based on their weight. The definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ under Section 2(21) of the MV Act is inclusive, covering different types of vehicles, including transport vehicles, provided their weight does not exceed 7,500 kg.
  • The MV Act classifies vehicles into two primary groups: Light Motor Vehicles and Heavy Motor Vehicles.
  • If a motorcycle used for hire (weighing less than 200 kg) falls under the category of transport vehicles, riders operating in motorcycle hire businesses would need fresh licenses if Mukund Dewangan were overruled.
  • Parliament had merged four categories of vehicles into one—‘transport vehicles’—to simplify the licensing scheme. The legislative intent was to categorize vehicles based on weight rather than description.
  • Auto drivers were permitted to operate taxis and motor cabs while holding a driving license for a light motor vehicle. Revisiting the Mukund Dewangan decision would directly impact the livelihoods of individuals driving transport vehicles with an LMV license.

Applicability of Per Incuriam Explained

The Supreme Court outlined key principles regarding the applicability of the per incuriam rule:

  1. A decision is per incuriam only if some part of the reasoning is demonstrably wrong.
  2. It applies when an overlooked statutory provision or legal precedent is central to the legal issue and could have led to a different outcome had it been considered.
  3. The overlooked provision must be inconsistent and a glaring case of obtrusive omission.
  4. The doctrine strictly applies to ratio decidendi and not obiter dicta.
  5. If a court doubts a precedent’s correctness, it should either follow it or refer it to a larger Bench for reconsideration.

Whether Mukund Dewangan Judgment Was Passed Per Incuriam

  • The judgment gave due consideration to significant statutory provisions.
  • The Supreme Court observed that a harmonious interpretation would lead to the same conclusion, supported by additional reasoning based on all relevant provisions.
  • The overlooked provisions did not alter the final decision.
  • There was no glaring error or omission that would change the case outcome.
  • The Supreme Court did not find it necessary to disturb the Mukund Dewangan ratio by applying the per incuriam principle.

Summary and Conclusion

The doctrine of per incuriam is a safeguard against judicial oversight, ensuring legal consistency and coherence. The Supreme Court’s examination in the Bajaj Alliance case reaffirmed that a decision is per incuriam only in exceptional cases where an overlooked provision or precedent would have significantly altered the outcome.

The ruling in Mukund Dewangan was contested yet ultimately affirmed as not per incuriam. Although certain arguments indicated that the decision raised issues regarding safety and licensing uncertainties, the Court asserted that the ruling was in alignment with statutory interpretation and the intent of the legislature.

Consequently, the doctrine of per incuriam is employed with prudence, maintaining judicial consistency while permitting rectifications in instances of evident and substantiated mistakes.

FAQs

  1. What does the Doctrine of Per Incuriam mean?

    Per Incuriam is a Latin term which means “through lack of care”. The Doctrine of Per Incuriam is a feature of the Common Law system pertaining to judicial precedents. A judgment is said to be rendered per incuriam when it is delivered in ignorance of a binding precedent or a statutory provision that directly applies to the facts of the case. This doctrine serves to correct judicial oversights and ensures that the legal framework remains consistent and comprehensive.

  2. How is the Doctrine of Per Incuriam applied in Indian law?

    In India, the Doctrine of Per Incuriam is enforced only when a judgement has overlooked a statutory provision or a legal precedent which is central to the legal issue in question. Further, the Doctrine is applicable only to the ratio decidendi and does not apply to obiter dicta. A Court will apply the Doctrine only when a part of the decision was based on a reasoning which was glaringly wrong. 

  3. What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s. Bajaj Alliance v. Rambha Devi regarding Per Incuriam?

    The Supreme Court in M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors. had decided on the issue whether the decision of the three-judge bench in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 14 SCC 663 (Mukund Dewangan) is Per Incuriam. The Supreme Court observed that the judgement in Mukund Dewangan gave due consideration to the important statutory provisions and applying the fundamental principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Bajaj Alliance. The Supreme Court observed that they did not notice any glaring error or omission that would alter the outcome of the case and ruled in favour of not applying the Doctrine of Per Incuriam to the decision in Mukund Dewangan.

  4. Why was Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance challenged as Per Incuriam?

    One of the primary grounds for challenging the decision in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance as Per Incuriam was that the decision focused on the general law, rather than special provisions within the MV Act. Further the decision was challenged as Per Incuraim on the ground that it overlooked the statutory provisions regarding licensing for Light Motor Vehicles (LMVs) vis-a-vis transport vehicles. The key contention was that Mukund Dewangan had interpreted Section 2(21) of the MV Act, defining “light motor vehicle,” as inclusive of transport vehicles with a gross vehicle weight not exceeding 7,500 kilograms. In addition to the overlooking of statutory provisions, the decision was challenged as Per Incuriam on the grounds of road safety and public welfare.

  5. What is the position of the Doctrine of Per Incuriam vis-a-vis Article 141 of the Indian Constitution?

    The rule under Article 141 states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. However, the Doctrine of Per Incuriam is an exception to the rule under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution. The High Courts are entitled to hold a decision of the Supreme Court Per Incuriam if it fulfils the principles/ passes the test laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s. Bajaj Alliance v. Rambha Devi more importantly when the overlooked statutory provision or legal precedent is central to the legal issue in question and might have led to a different outcome if the overlooked provisions were considered. However, it is pertinent to note that a High Court cannot hold a Supreme Court judgement to be Per Incuriam by relying on additional grounds which were not considered by the Supreme Court.

  6. What are the key legal principles to determine if a judgment is Per Incuriam? 

    A judgment is considered Per Incuriam if it ignores a binding precedent or a relevant statutory provision that is central to the case. The overlooked law must be significant enough that considering it could have changed the decision. The omission must be a clear and glaring error, not just a minor oversight.

  7. Does Per Incuriam apply to all parts of a judgment?

    No, Per Incuriam applies only to the ratio decidendi (the binding legal reasoning of the judgment) and not to obiter dicta (observations made in passing that are not binding).

  8. What impact does a Per Incuriam judgment have on lower courts?

    A judgment declared Per Incuriam is not binding on lower courts. 

  9. Did the Supreme Court overrule Mukund Dewangan in M/s Bajaj Alliance?

    No, the Supreme Court in M/s Bajaj Alliance did not declare Mukund Dewangan as Per Incuriam. It acknowledged that certain statutory provisions were overlooked but found that these omissions did not alter the core reasoning or outcome of the judgment.

  10. How does the doctrine of Per Incuriam affect insurance claims under the Motor Vehicles Act?

    The M/s Bajaj Alliance judgment clarified that insurers cannot reject claims based on technicalities related to LMV licenses for transport vehicles under 7500 kg. This ensures that insurance claims are not denied on narrow procedural grounds, protecting the rights of policyholders and accident victims.

  11. Can a High Court judgment be declared Per Incuriam in India?

    Yes, a High Court judgment can be declared Per Incuriam in India if it overlooks a binding precedent set by the Supreme Court or ignores a relevant statutory provision that is central to the legal issue at hand. According to the doctrine of Per Incuriam, a judgment rendered without considering essential legal principles or precedents lacks binding authority. However, a High Court itself cannot declare its own judgment Per Incuriam; it must be done by a larger bench of the same court or the Supreme Court. Additionally, subordinate courts are not bound by a High Court ruling that has been deemed Per Incuriam and may disregard such a decision when adjudicating future cases.

References

  1. (2024) 1 SCC 818
  2. (2017) 14 SCC 663

More from Neeti Niyaman Team –