By Palak Jain
Introduction
The Constitution of India provides Supreme Court as the highest Court of authority in India. It is regarded as the custodian of the Indian constitution. It has the power to declare a law or order or ordinance void ab initio if it is found to be inconsistent with the constitution.
Thus, the Supreme Court of India is the apex Court in India and has a wide range of powers and functions.
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Constitution under Part V (Article 124-147) deals with its independence, jurisdiction, function, powers, and procedures. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, writ jurisdiction, appellate jurisdiction and advisory jurisdiction under its ambit. The Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction (under Article 131) relating to disputes arising between two or more states, between the center and one or more states and between the center and one or more states on one side and one or more states on the other.
The Supreme Court under Article 32 of the constitution is empowered to issue writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, quo warranto and prohibition for the enforcement of fundamental rights of the citizens.
The Supreme Court enjoys wide appellate jurisdiction (Under Article 132-135). It is a Court of appeal that is it hears appeals against the decisions or judgments passed by the lower Courts in matters relating to constitutional, civil, criminal and special leave petitions.
Article 143 empowers the President to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court in circumstances that arises a question of law or fact that is of public importance.
Revisory Jurisdiction
Article 137 of the constitution provides the Supreme Court revisory jurisdiction subject to provisions of any law made by the Parliament or any rules under article 145 under which the Supreme Court can review any of its order or judgment.
The court has the power to review its decisions and correct if any error that might have inadvertently crept in. Hence, the decisions made by the Supreme Court are binding on the entire judicial system except for itself.
However, it does not mean that the Supreme Court has the power to correct rulings of minor errors of insignificant import. This power of the Court is by no means an appeal in disguise.
According to Part-IV of Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the court may review its judgment or order, but an application in a civil proceeding will not be entertained except on the grounds prescribed in Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
Similarly, no application in a criminal proceeding is entertained except on the ground of error apparent on the face of record[1]. The application for review must be certified by an Advocate on Record on a certificate stating that the application is a first for reviewal and is based on the grounds that are admissible under the rules mentioned.
Grounds for considering Review Petition
It is to be noted that a review application shall be by a petition, within 30 days from the date of the judgment or order which is to be reviewed and it should clearly state the grounds for review.
A petitioner can file for review of a verdict on the following grounds:
- discovery of new and important pieces of evidences or information which are the result of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
- error apparent on the face of the record;
- any other sufficient reason that is corresponding to the other two grounds.
Procedure of the Court
An application for review is ordinarily disposed of without oral arguments. It is heard through circulation by the judges in their chambers. However, a petitioner can supplement his petition by attaching additional written arguments.
It is to be noted that in cases of exception, the Court does allow oral arguments. In a case of 2014, the Supreme Court held that all review petitions of the death penalty, a bench of three judges will be heard in an open Court.
The petition can either be dismissed by the Court or a direct notice is sent to the opposite party. An application for review is generally as far as possible circulated to the same judge or bench of judges that had delivered the judgment or order for revisory. When an application for review of any judgment or order has been made and disposed of no further application for review shall be entertained in the same manner.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lily Thomas v. Union of India[2], laid down the dictionary meaning of the word review means “the act of looking, offer something again with a view to improvement or correction”. It further stated that review is a creation of a statute review and that cannot be denied.
The Court held that the power of review is not an appeal in disguise in the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arunsinghji[3]. If the Court finds that an error has been made while passing a judgment due to some erroneous assumption that did not exist and its perpetration has resulted from a miscarriage of justice, then nothing will preclude the court to rectify that mistake.
In a 2013 ruling, (Union of India v. Sandur Manganese &Iron ore Ltd[4]), the Supreme Court provided nine principles on when can a review be maintainable. The Court states that “A review by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error”. It was further added that the remote possibility of two perspectives regarding the matter cannot be a ground for review.
In the Sabrimala case[5], the Supreme Court had been conferred review jurisdiction under article 137 of the constitution as the early verdict directed by the Court lacked legal reasoning.
The Supreme Court, while allowing the writ petition filed by Indian Young Lawyers Association along with the review petition, struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965, which was the legal basis for barring entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50 years into Sabarimala temple.
In the Northern India Caterers (India) v/s Lt. Governor of Delhi (1976)[6] case, the Supreme Court had explained its scope of power of review provided to it under article 137 of the constitution. The court states that an application of review cannot be entitled to seek review on the mere purpose of rehearing and fresh decision in a case. Review applications are justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it essential to do so.
In 2018, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered its decision relating to Section 498(a) of IPC, which was inserted by the Parliament for the benefit and advantage of women in our country, over the years has turned to be the most misused sections. As a result of which false complaints were filed by women due to which innocent husbands or relatives have been arrested by the police.
Thus the Supreme Court was compelled to pass an order stating that whenever a complaint was passed by a married woman under this section, the accused- namely the husband or husband’s relative cannot be arrested immediately.
The decision was widely criticized in civil society groups and women’s rights organizations stating that judgment has led to a significant delusion of section 498 (a). Hence a three-judge bench decided to review its decision in the Rakesh Sharma v/s Union of India, and overruled its previous decisions, and modified the guidelines earlier provided.
In Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v/s The State of Maharashtra[7], a two-judge bench decided to remove the bar on grant of anticipatory bails in the cases of atrocities under SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and laid down guidelines for arrests under this act.
This decision led into an outcry of protests by the public and Dalit communities. As a result the Centre filed review petition against the judgment. Petitions were filed against the amendment to the act on the grounds that it violates the right to equality and life under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
In October 2019, the Supreme Court had allowed the review petitions and overturned its March 2018 judgment effectively sanctioning the amendment act[8].
In Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.[9], held that an error cannot be said to be apparent on the face of record if it requires extensive search to see if a judgment is correct or not. Thus, an error apparent on the face of the record means an error that can be found at a glance and does not require a long process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
Thus, if a view is accepted by the Court in the original judgment is one possible view, the case cannot be said to be covered by an error[10].
In the Nirbhaya case[11] the Supreme Court had rejected the review petition filed by three of the accused in the case challenging the convictions and death sentence. However, the three-bench judge comprising of- Chief Justice Diapak Mishra, Justice R. Banumati and Justice Ashok Bhushan stated that the petition did not have grounds for admittance under article 137 of the constitution (read with consonance in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013)
Recently, the Supreme Court has dismissed review petitions sought before it in the case regarding the Shaheen Bagh anti-CAA protests. The Court restated that the right to protest guaranteed under the constitution comes with certain duties and there cannot be continued occupation of a public spot in the event of delayed difference or protest. The review petition was rejected on the ground that there was no error apparent warranting its reconsideration.
The Supreme Court has dismissed all the review petitions filed before it against its verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case. The five-judge bench rejected the review petitions as there was no apparent ground, whatsoever to entertain the said petitions.
Conclusion
The jurisdiction to review is a discretionary power of the Supreme Court. The power to review, of the Supreme Court is a protective measure to make sure justice is delivered and there is no fallibility by the judiciary to any aggrieved individual or party.
However, a review petition may be dismissed or admitted depends upon the fact relating to the case. It may be dismissed if there is no error apparent on face of record.
Thus, the success of a review petition is very limited. This power of the Supreme Court is an essential feature of the Indian Judiciary and plays a very significant role in administering justice in our country.
Reference:
- main.sci.gov.in/ ↑
- Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224 ↑
- Patel Narshi Thakershi v/s Pradyumansinghji Arunsinghji (1971) 3 SCC 844 ↑
- Union of India (UOI) v. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. and Ors. (23.04.2013 – SC) : MANU/SC/0417/2013 ↑
- Young Indian Lawyers Association v. Union of India 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1690 ↑
- Northern India Caterers (India) v/s Lt. Governor of Delhi (1976) AIR 1980 SC 674: (1980) 2 SCC 163 ↑
- Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (20.03.2018 – SC) : MANU/SC/0275/2018 ↑
- 2008 (230) E.L.T. 385 (SC) ↑
- Taxgruru-in.cdn.ampproject.org ↑
- Mukesh and Anr. V. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 6 SCC 1 ↑