Back
1995 Supreme(SC) 267
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., K.S. Paripoornan, S.C. Agarwal, S.P. Bharucha, Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.
BUTA SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS., PETITIONERS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA, RESPONDENT.
SLP (C) No. 1672 of 1994, decided on February 21, 1995.
A judgment is per incuriam if it fails to consider a binding precedent of a larger bench. Such a decision does not consciously differ from the established law and is not binding; the law laid down by the larger bench prevails.
Headnote:(A) Judicial Precedent - Doctrine of per incuriam - Conflict between decisions of different Benches - A decision rendered by a two-Judge Bench that fails to notice a decision of a three-Judge Bench holding the field is per incuriam - Such a decision does not consciously differ from the earlier larger Bench decision and cannot be said to be laying down the correct law.
Facts of the case:
A reference was made to a Constitution Bench to resolve a perceived conflict between several judgments rendered by two-Judge Benches and a three-Judge Bench. The core of the reference was to determine if a subsequent decision by a two-Judge Bench had created a conflict with earlier established law and whether such a conflict necessitated resolution by a larger bench.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the subsequent two-Judge Bench decision failed to notice a three-Judge Bench decision that had already explained and settled the law. Consequently, the subsequent decision was held to be per incuriam, as the attention of the bench was not invited to the binding three-Judge Bench decision holding the field.
Issues: Whether there existed a conflict between the cited judgments and whether the decision rendered by the subsequent two-Judge Bench was the correct law in light of a prior three-Judge Bench decision.
Ratio Decidendi: A judgment is per incuriam when it is rendered in ignorance of a binding precedent of a larger bench. Such a judgment does not constitute a conscious departure from the law and does not override the larger bench's decision; therefore, the law laid down by the larger bench continues to be the correct and binding law.
Result: Reference disposed of; matters remanded to the appropriate Bench for disposal in accordance with the affirmed law.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
judicial process
- reference to larger bench
- per incuriam doctrine
-
judicial process
ORDER
In Buta Singh v. Union of India a two-Judge Bench of this Court after noticing the decision in Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and the subsequent decision of this Court in Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India, observed that the decision rendered by another two-Judge Bench of this Court in Chand Kaur v. Union of India raised a conflict which was needed to be resolved by a Constitution Bench of this Court. That is how this Bench is required to consider whether there is any conflict at all, and if so, whether it was necessary to resolve the same. Having perused the decisions referred to above, including the decision rendered in the case of Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana, we are of the opinion that the decision rendered by a two-Judge Bench in the case of Chand Kaur had failed to notice the decisions rendered subsequent to the decision in the case of Bhag Singh, in particular the decision in the case of Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. which explained the earlier two decisions. It is, therefore, obvious that the decision rendered in the case of Chand Kaur is per incuriam, inasmuch as, the attention of the Bench was not invited to a three-Judge Bench decision in the case of Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. which was holding the field. The decision in Chand Kaur case, thus being per incuriam, does not in fact consciously differ from the decision in the case of Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. We, therefore, put the matter beyond the pale of doubt by stating that the law as laid down in the decision in Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. is correct and should hold the field; we approve of it and, therefore, the subsequent decision in the case of Chand Kaur to the extent it conflicts with the view taken in that case cannot be said to be laying down the correct law. We dispose of the reference to this Bench accordingly and the matters will now go back to the appropriate Bench for disposal in accordance with law laid down in Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd., hereby affirmed and approved by us.
