High Court's Administrative Side Cannot Seek Review Of Order Passed On Judicial Side: Madras High Court
While dismissing a review application filed by the High Court of Madras on its administrative side, the Madras High Court held that the administrative side cannot seek a review of its own judgments on the judicial side as it would amount to undermining the judicial fibre. Justice PT Asha noted that while an administrative order of the High Court can be subject to scrutiny, the vice...
While dismissing a review application filed by the High Court of Madras on its administrative side, the Madras High Court held that the administrative side cannot seek a review of its own judgments on the judicial side as it would amount to undermining the judicial fibre.
Justice PT Asha noted that while an administrative order of the High Court can be subject to scrutiny, the vice versa was not true.
Therefore, the present petition seeking leave to review which does not come within the parameters supra, cannot be entertained as it would amount to undermining the Judicial fibre whose touchstone is its fierce independence and to discharge its duty without any kind of fear or favour.
The court was faced with this “strange conundrum” when the High Court on its administrative side had sought review of a May 5 order passed by Justice Asha where the court was dealing with the benefit of exemption from payment of court fee. After noting that grant of exemption was the discretion of the Presiding Officer, the court also laid down certain guidelines for granting exemption. These guidelines were being challenged by the administrative side even though it was not a party to those proceedings.
The court observed that the administrative side had failed to state how it was aggrieved by the guidelines that were issued.
I am faced with a rather strange conundrum of the High Court on its Administrative side seeking leave to review an order passed by it on its judicial side, particularly when the High Court is not even a party to the proceedings leave alone an aggrieved party. Is this Court therefore confronting a two faced JANUS?
Further, the directions, by no stretch of imagination were prejudicial to the interests of the claimants, Court said. Thus, as per the court, the administrative side was only trying to circumscribe the judicial authority of the court exercising jurisdiction under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent 1865.
The court also stated that as per Article 215 of the Constitution, the right to correct judgment accrued only when there was an apparent error and even that right was conferred only on the High Court in its judicial side. The court also noted that as per binding precedents, the orders passed by the Judicial side were binding on the administrative side which the administrative side could not ignore these orders.
Case Title: The High court of Judicature at Madras v. Thirumalai and others