legal maxim

The phrase “Per Incuria” means “through lack of care”, though it is used as per ignoratium in practise, which translate to ignorance of law. This maxim is used when a decision by the Court has been mistakenly given without keeping in mind all the relevant facts or statutes regarding the case. In cases where crucial importance was not given to the words of the rule or the issue before the Court was not sufficiently argued or considered. The maxim also finds its use in cases where the judgement has merely been stated without backing it through any substantiation by the Rule of Law. If there is a decision Per Incuria, it shall not be binding on the other courts as precedent. Such decisions are said to be wrongly decided and do not hold any value in the eyes of Law. This acts as an exception to the rule of Stare Decisis.

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court did not follow the rule laid down in G. S. Sibbia v. State of Punjab, which had laid down certain guidelines concerning anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Code Procedure (CrPC). The judgement of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra was considered per incurium since a vital aspect of the G.S. Sibbia v. Satte of Punjab judgement was missing.

D. J. Malpani v. Commissioner of Central Excise

In this case, the Supreme Court discarded the argument of the assessee which was based on Panchmukhi case. The Apex Court observed that the decision in Panchmukhi was not based on arguments rather on just the decision in TICSO Ltd. because the Dharmada - a type of tax collected, in Pnchmukhi case was similar to the surplus price in the TISCO Ltd. case. Thus, the decision in Panchmukhi case was rendered per incurium.