Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Per Incuriam Doctrine - Several judgments discuss that a decision can be declared per incuriam if it overlooks binding higher authority, such as a Full Bench or Supreme Court decision. Notably, the Single Judge's decision in Shivaji Laxman Wadkar was held per incuriam for not considering the Full Bench ruling in Prakash Securities, which is binding law. Similarly, decisions in cases like Ajit Singh and others were declared per incuriam for not taking into account earlier Supreme Court judgments, such as Narendra Kumar Amin and Tulsiram. 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 2240,
BALKARAN SINGH @ KAKA AND ANR vs STATE OF HARYANA - Punjab and Haryana
, 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2018,SUSHIL KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA - Punjab and Haryana
,GAJJAN SINGH vs STATE OF HARYANA - Punjab and Haryana
,VIVEK SABHARWAL vs UT CHANDIGARH - Punjab and Haryana
, 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6339,LADDU vs STATE OF HARYANA - Punjab and Haryana
,VIJAY PAL Vs STATE OF HARYANA - Punjab and Haryana
Role of Hierarchical Doctrine - Several sources emphasize that lower courts or smaller Benches cannot declare decisions of larger Benches or Supreme Court judgments per incuriam, respecting the doctrine of stare decisis. For instance, the State of Haryana and other judgments assert that a Single Bench cannot override or declare a Larger Bench's judgment per incuriam without proper authority, and such declarations require reference to a Division Bench. 2022 0 Supreme(P&H) 262,
VIVEK SABHARWAL vs UT CHANDIGARH - Punjab and Haryana
,VIJAY PAL Vs STATE OF HARYANA - Punjab and Haryana
Procedural and Legal Limitations - Some judgments highlight procedural lapses or omissions, such as failing to consider relevant earlier judgments, which can render a decision per incuriam. For example, in Jeetu Bhai, the omission to consider the Tulsiram judgment led to the conclusion that the National Insurance judgment was per incuriam. 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6339, 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2018
Analysis and ConclusionThe concept of per incuriam is applied when a judicial decision overlooks binding higher authority or relevant legal principles, making it invalid or non-binding. However, the principle is strictly confined by hierarchical judicial discipline; lower courts or Benches cannot declare larger Bench decisions per incuriam without proper procedural steps, such as reference or appeal. The consistent theme across these sources underscores the importance of respecting judicial hierarchy and ensuring comprehensive consideration of relevant precedents to avoid decisions being declared per incuriam.
In the intricate world of Indian jurisprudence, the doctrine of plays a pivotal role in maintaining judicial consistency. But what happens when a single judge seeks to hold a division bench judgment as ? This question— by Single Judge Holding Division Bench Judgement—often arises in proceedings, raising concerns about and the principle of .
This blog post delves into the legal principles governing such scenarios, drawing from established precedents. While this provides general insights, it is not legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
A decision is deemed when rendered in ignorance or forgetfulness of a binding authority, statutory provision, or relevant precedent, leading to demonstrably wrong reasoning 2014 0 Supreme(AP) 1319 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 1768 2010 0 Supreme(UK) 84. It typically involves oversight or carelessness, where the court fails to consider relevant statutory law or binding higher court decisions 2014 0 Supreme(AP) 1319 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 1768 2010 0 Supreme(UK) 84.
The doctrine serves as a narrow exception to , ensuring flawed decisions do not bind future cases. However, it is not a tool for mere disagreement; there must be clear evidence of ignorance of binding material 2002 0 Supreme(Kar) 528 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 1768.
Decisions from larger benches, such as or , bind single judges and unless proven 1995 0 Supreme(All) 165 2010 0 Supreme(All) 2179 1986 0 Supreme(Pat) 288. A single judge must adhere to the of a larger bench unless it is:
Simply disagreeing with a larger bench does not suffice. If a single judge believes the decision is , it should refer the matter to a larger bench rather than ignore it outright 2002 0 Supreme(Kar) 528 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 1768.
A single judge cannot lightly declare a division bench judgment . Courts emphasize judicial discipline:
Labeling decisions casually undermines consistency. and higher bench rulings remain binding unless explicitly overruled or clearly 2014 0 Supreme(AP) 1319 1995 0 Supreme(All) 165.
judgments illustrate these principles. For instance, in one case, a division bench addressed a single bench's reliance on a decision, holding it for not accounting for an earlier larger bench ruling, invoking
. The division bench noted: The Division Bench answered the above reference by holding that a Challan presented without Chemical Examiner's taken into account an earlier decision of the in larger Bench to be in view of the doctrine of
.
Similarly, another ruling critiqued single benches for declaring larger bench judgments : However, I express my respectful disagreement with the aforementioned Single Bench judgements on the ground that a smaller Bench could not have declared the judgement of a larger Bench to be
. This aligns with the view that smaller benches lack authority to override larger ones without reference
.
In cases like those involving Ajit Singh alias Jeeta, single bench decisions were scrutinized for erroneously applying against binding division bench rulings, especially when ignoring precedents like State of Haryana
.
Other precedents reinforce this:
These examples highlight procedural lapses, like failing to consider cases (Narendra Kumar Amin, Tulsiram), rendering decisions vulnerable 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 2240.
is sacrosanct. Smaller benches cannot declare larger ones without authority; such actions demand reference to superior benches 2022 0 Supreme(P&H) 262. The in State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer () warned: The earlier judgement may seem to be not correct yet it will have the binding effect on the later Bench of coordinate jurisdiction... It creates confusion... and ultimately maligns the image of the 2011 0 Supreme(All) 3168.
A single judge may hold a division bench judgment only with clear evidence of oversight of binding authority, but typically, referral to a larger bench is the prudent path. This preserves and judicial harmony.
Key Takeaways:- requires demonstrable ignorance, not mere disagreement 2014 0 Supreme(AP) 1319 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 1768.- Larger bench decisions bind single judges unless exceptionally flawed 1995 0 Supreme(All) 165.- Refer conflicts upward for resolution.- Uphold hierarchy to ensure legal certainty.
This analysis draws from authoritative sources, underscoring the doctrine's limited scope. For tailored advice, seek professional legal counsel.
#PerIncuriam, #JudicialPrecedent, #IndianLaw
The learned Single Judge could have followed the decision in Prakash Securities being binding law holding that decision of the Division Bench in Shivaji Laxman Wadkar was per incuriam. ... As the reference order suggests, even the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that, the order passed by the Division Benches ....
per incuriam. ... The Division Bench answered the above reference by holding that a Challan presented without Chemical Examiner's taken into account an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in larger Bench to be per incuriam in view of the doctrine of stare decisis and also that the principle of per incuriam ....
However, I express my respectful disagreement with the aforementioned Single Bench judgements on the ground that a smaller Bench could not have declared the judgement of a larger Bench to be per incuriam in view of the doctrine of stare decisis and also that the principle of per incuriam has been applied ... State of Haryana' as it wa....
with two Single Bench judgments in Akash Kumar alias Sunny (supra) and Shankar (supra) and a binding Division Bench judgement in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta (supra). ... to be per incuriam in view of the doctrine of stare decisis and also that the principle of per incuriam has been applied erroneously. ... State of Haryana' a....
per incuriam. ... have declared the judgement of a larger Bench to be per incuriam in view of the doctrine of stare decisis and also that the principle of per incuriam has been appliedAjit Singh alias span style="font-family:TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic,serif ... Bench for consideration of this matter.
Having failed to place these facts before the learned Single Judge, on the legal impediments and infirmities in the procedural law, the order itself may be rendered “per incuriam”. 18. ... In view of the well established law on the principles of “per incuriam”, the decision in W.P.No.4343 of 2021, cannot be treated as “binding precedent” and at the most, it should be considered of having....
However, I express my respectful disagreement with the aforementioned Single Bench judgements on the ground that a smaller Bench could not have declared the judgement of a larger Bench to be per incuriam in ... State of Haryana' as it was of the view that a smaller Bench could not have declared the Judgment of a Larger Bench t....
There is one more peculiar aspect of the case that the Hon'ble Single Judge, while holding the judgment in National Insurance Company Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE Limited (Supra) to be per incuriam, did not refer to the judgement of a co- ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the case ... This Court is now faced with a situation where the judg....
per incuriam. ... to be per incuriam in view of the doctrine of stare decisis and also that the principle of per incuriam has ... Bench was per incuriam since it had not taken into account an earlier holding that a Challan presented without Chemical Examiner'sDivision Ben....
with two Single Bench judgments in Akash Kumar alias Sunny (supra) and Shankar (supra) and a binding Division Bench judgement in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta (supra). ... 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-48-2021(O&M) 7 the judgement of a larger Bench to be per incuriam in as it was of the view ....
The judgment relied by the petitioners of the Division Bench of this Court is per incuriam as held by the Division Bench in W.P.(S) No.6302 of 2017.
It was fairly submitted by learned senior counsel that controversy involved in this bunch of writ petitions is squarely covered by Division Bench Judgment of this Court in LPA(OW) No. 4/2016 dated 20.05.2016. However, it was submitted that the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench is per incuriam It is further submitted that the amended rule 16 is in contravention of Section 26 of the Act and is against the basic structure of the cooperative movement and this aspect has no....
The learned Single Judge has held the judgements of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench in Har Pal Singh’s case as per-incuriam. The Full Bench in the case of Arun Kumar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (1) ADJ 1, has upheld the view taken by the Division Bench in Har Pal Singh’s case. The writ petitions were entertained and finally allowed. Since there was a difference of opinion, the matter has been referred to the Full Bench.
The learned Single Judge of Lucknow Bench of this Court after noticing the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Har Pal Singh’s case (supra), allowed the writ petitions vide its judgment and order dated 9th February, 2012. Learned Single Judge of Lucknow Bench held the judgments of learned Single Judge and Division Bench in Har Pal Singh’s case (supra) as per-Incuriam. After the jud....
It creates confusion in the mind of the people at large and ultimately maligns the image of the High Court. The earlier judgement may seem to be not correct yet it will have the binding effect on the later Bench of coordinate jurisdiction. In 2003 (5) SCC 448 (State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer alias Kalika Singh and others) it has been held by the Supreme Court that an earlier decision may seem to be incorrect to a Bench of a coordinate jurisdiction considering the question later, on the ground th....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
