Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan Vs State of Haryana & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court Explains the Doctrine of Per Incuriam; Holds Earlier Remission Ruling Not Binding
In a significant judgment on judicial precedents, the Supreme Court has elaborately explained the doctrine of per incuriam and held that its earlier decision in State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar (2021) was rendered per incuriam as it overlooked the binding ratio of the larger Bench decision in State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010). Consequently, the Court held that the Haryana Remission Policy, 2002, issued under Article 161 of the Constitution, could not be treated as a mere statutory policy or superseded by the subsequent 2008 policy framed under the CrPC.
The Court devoted a separate discussion to the doctrine of per incuriam and summarised the governing principles. It held that the doctrine is a narrow exception to the rule of stare decisis and must be invoked sparingly. A judgment is per incuriam where its ratio is irreconcilable with an earlier decision of a Bench of equal or larger strength, or where a relevant statutory provision or binding legal principle was not brought to the Court’s notice. The Court further clarified that the doctrine applies only to the ratio decidendi and not to obiter dicta, and that a Bench of lesser or co-equal strength cannot depart from the view taken by a larger Bench. Where disagreement exists without a controlling precedent, the proper course is to refer the matter to a larger Bench.
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that the 1993 and 2002 Haryana Remission Policies were identical in substance, both requiring the Governor to exercise powers under Article 161. Since the three-Judge Bench in Jagdish had already recognised the 1993 Policy as one issued under the Governor’s constitutional powers, the later decision in Raj Kumar, which characterised the 2002 Policy as merely statutory, was inconsistent with the binding larger Bench precedent. The Court therefore declared that the observations in Raj Kumar on this aspect were per incuriam and not binding.
The Court ultimately held that the 2002 constitutional remission policy continued to govern the appellant’s case, notwithstanding the subsequent 2008 statutory policy, since a policy framed under Article 161 cannot be overridden by one issued under Sections 432 and 433 of the CrPC. It directed the State to reconsider the appellant’s remission under the 2002 Policy within four weeks, while clarifying that the judgment would operate prospectively and would not reopen remission cases already decided.
Cases Discussed:
