Five Judges in Dr. Shah Faesal v. Union of India, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1099 of 2019] have decided the following.

“The rule of per incuriam means a Judgment passed in ignorance of a relevant statute or any other binding authority [See, Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd., 1944 KB 718 (CA)]. The view that the subsequent decision shall be declared per incuriam only if there exists a conflict in the ratio decidendi of the pertinent Judgments was taken by a Five-­Judge Bench decision of this Court in Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd., (1990) 3 SCC 682.

A case is only an authority for what it actually decides. The observations made in a Judgment cannot be selectively picked in order to give them a particular meaning. This Court sees no reason to read into Prem Nath Kaul, AIR 1959 SC 749 an interpretation which results in it being in conflict with the subsequent Judgments of this Court, particularly when an ordinary reading of the Judgment does not result in such an interpretation. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that there is no conflict between the Judgments in Prem Nath Kaul and Sampat Prakash, AIR 1970 SC 1118.

At the cost of repetition, we note that the rule of per incuriam is only applicable to the ratio of the Judgment. There are no contrary observations made in Sampat Prakash to that of Prem Nath Kaul. Accordingly, Sampat Prakash is not per incuriam.”

_____

Narendra Kumar Tripathi, (2015) 11 SCC 80 is per incuriam, as binding decisions of this Court in Santosh Kumar, (2003) 10 SCC 513 and Archana Shukla, (2011) 15 SCC 194 were not brought to notice of this Court when this Court decided Narendra Kumar Tripathi.

– Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah, Rashi Mani Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [Civil Appeal No. 10788 of 2016] decided on 28.07.2021.

_____

A few months after Lord Evershed in Morelle Ltd. v. Wakeling, (1955) 1 All ER 708 (CA), Constitution Bench of this Court in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661 adopted principle of per incuriam. It held, while Article 141 states, Supreme Court’s decisions are binding on all Courts within India, this does not extend to binding Supreme Court itself, which remains free to reconsider its Judgments in appropriate cases.

Five Judge Bench of this Court in Dr. Shah Faesal v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 1 reiterated, principle of per incuriam only applies on ratio.

A decision is per incuriam only when an overlooked statutory provision or legal precedent is central and might have led to a different outcome if considered. It must be an inconsistent provision and a glaring case of ‘obtrusive omission’.

– Hon’ble Justice Hrishikesh Roy, M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, [Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018] decided on 06.11.2024.  

_____

Judgment can be said to be per incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with a previously pronounced Judgment of a Co-Equal or Larger Bench.

– Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Banwari v. HSIIDC, [Civil Appeal No. 13348 of 2024] decided on 10.12.2024.

_____

Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1 observed, “We are distressed to note, despite several pronouncements, there is substantial increase in number of cases involving violation of basics of judicial discipline. It must be remembered, predictability and certainty is an important hallmark….”

It is trite law, a Bench of Two-Judges is bound by an earlier view taken by other Two-Judge Benches. If, however, a subsequent Bench of Two Judges considers law laid down earlier by another Two-Judges Bench requires reconsideration, only option available to it is to Refer to a Larger Bench.

– Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India v. Vanashakti, [Diary No. 41929 of 2025 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1394 of 2023] decided on 18.11.2025.

_____

Two-Judge Bench in Suhas H. Pophale v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 4 SCC 657 overlooked, ignored and disregarded ratio decidendi of Constitution Bench in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank, (1990) 4 SCC 406 and Three-Judge Bench in M/s. Jain Ink Manufacturing Company v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1980) 4 SCC 435. It could be viewed as judicial indiscipline, if not judicial impropriety. Suhas H. Pophale could not have taken a view contrary to decisions of Benches of Larger Strength.

– Hon’ble Justice N.V. Anjaria, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Vita Pvt. Ltd., [Civil Appeal No. 2638 of 2023] decided on 11.12.2025.