Basic Philosophy Behind Granting Power To Review Judgments Is 'Universal Acceptance Of Human Fallibility': Supreme Court

The basic philosophy inherent in granting the power to the Supreme Court to review its judgment under Article 137 is the universal acceptance of human fallibility, the Supreme Court observed in an order allowing a Review Petition.

The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and Indu Malhotra observed that the rejection of Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of a judgment does not preclude filing of a review petition subsequently.  

In this case, the Supreme Court had earlier allowed a Transfer Petition transferring Trial of a Criminal Case from Metropolitan Magistrate Court at New Delhi to Metropolitan Magistrate at Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh. Later, the person who had filed the FIR, approached the Court by filing a Miscellaneous Application praying for recall of the Order which was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed the Review Petition.

Before the Court, the review-petitioner submitted that he was not impleaded in the transfer petition so as to deny him the right to oppose the transfer petition. On the other hand, this review petition was opposed on the ground that review petition is not maintainable since all grounds, which are now sought to be raised in the review petition were already taken in the M.A., which was dismissed.

The Court observed that for mere rejection of M.A. filed by the review petitioner, he cannot be precluded from filing the present review petition. The court also noted that an order passed in M.A. does not indicate that any of the issues which were raised were considered and decided by the Court. In this context, the court observed:

"The rectification of an order emanates from the fundamental principles that justice is above all. In the Constitution, substantive power to rectify or review the order by the Supreme Court has been specifically provided under Article 137 as noted above. The basic philosophy inherent in granting the power to the Supreme Court to review its judgment under Article 137 is the universal acceptance of human fallibility."

The order having been passed on the first day of hearing without issuing notice under Order XXXIX Rule 2, review petitioner is right in his submission that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, the bench said while allowing the Review Petition. Rejecting the contentions about non-maintainibity, the bench observed thus:

"The M.A., which was rejected, was an application to recall the judgment. Grounds for recall of a judgment and grounds to review the judgment can be different. Review is a proceeding, which exists by virtue of the Statute. The M.A. which was rejected was not an application to review under Article 137 as well as Order XLVII Rule 1, thus, by rejection of M.A., it cannot be said that review petition filed by the review petitioner is not maintainable"

CASE: RAJENDRA KHARE vs SWAATI NIRKHI [R.P.(Crl.) No. 671/2018]

CORAM: Justices Ashok Bhushan and Indu Malhotra

CITATION: LL 2021 SC 46

Click here to Read/Download Order

Read Order