Per Incuriam
A judgment is per incuriam when it was decided in ignorance of a binding statute or precedent that would have altered the outcome, and such a judgment does not operate as binding precedent.
In plain English
The doctrine is a narrow exception to the rule that lower courts must follow higher ones. It applies where a judgment overlooked a statutory provision or a binding decision of a coordinate or larger bench — not merely where a later court considers the earlier reasoning weak. The threshold is deliberately high, because a broad doctrine would destabilise precedent altogether.
Why it matters
Arguing per incuriam is a way to escape an otherwise binding adverse authority. It is also a reason a technically "not overruled" judgment may still be unsafe to rely on — which citation checking alone will not reveal.
Example
A High Court decides a question without any party drawing its attention to a directly applicable Supreme Court judgment on the same provision. A later bench may hold the earlier decision per incuriam and decline to follow it.
Under Indian law
Indian courts have applied the doctrine consistently but narrowly, emphasising that it covers decisions rendered in ignorance of binding authority or statute, not decisions merely thought to be wrong.
How LexVio handles it
LexVio’s citation graphs surface how later benches have treated a judgment, including where it has been doubted or declined to be followed.
LexVio — Indian Court ResearchCommon questions
Is a per incuriam judgment automatically invalid?
It is not void, but it loses binding precedential force. The decision still binds the parties to that case; it simply does not bind later courts as precedent.