LexASHIQ HUSSAIN FAKTOO versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
[2016) 5 S.C.R. 884
ASHIQ HUSSAIN F AK TOO
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 46 OF 2008)
AUGUST 30, 2016
[RANJAN GOGOi, PRAFULLA C. PANT AND
A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.]
Constitution of India - Art. 32 - Conviction and sentence of
life imprisonment by Supreme Court in appeal u/s.3 of TADA Act
and s.302 rlw. s.J 20B !PC- Review petition dismissed- Writ petition
filed by convict u!Art. 32 of the Constitution seeking interference
with the order of conviction and sentence on the principle of ex-
debito justitiae - Maintainability - Held: The present writ petition ul
Art. 32 does not fit into any of the permissible categories of post
conviction exercises permissible in law as laid down by Supreme
Court - Merely because in the comprehension of the writ petitioner
the judgment of the Supreme Court is erroneous would not enable
the Court to reopen the issue in departure to the established and
settled norms and parameters of the extent of permissible exercise
of jurisdiction as well as the procedural law governing such exercise
- Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987- s.3 -
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw s.120B.
Doctrine of ex debito justitiae -
Applicability of -
Held:
Principle of ex debito justitiae is founded on a recognition of a debt
that the justice delivery system owes to a litigant to correct an error
in· a judicial dispensation - Its application, by the very nature of
things, cannot be made to depend on varying perceptions of legal
omissions and commissions but such recognition of the debt which
have the potential of opening new vistas of exercise jurisdiction to
retook concluded cases, must rest on surer foundations which have
been discerned and expressed by Supreme Court in Rupa Ashok
Hurra case - Maxims - Curative petition - Supreme Court Rules,
2013- 0. XLVlll.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court
· HELD: The principle of ex debito justitiae is founded on a
884
ASHIQ HUSSAIN F AK TOO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
885
recognition of a debt that the justice delivery system owes to a
A
litigant to correct an error in a judicial dispensation. Its application,
by the very nature of things, cannot be made to depend on varying
perceptions of legal omissions and commissions but such
recognition of the debt which have the potential of opening new
vistas of exercise jurisdiction to relook concluded cases, must · B
rest on surer foundations which have been discerned and
expressed by this Court in Rupa As/wk Hurra case*. Frantic cries
of injustice founded on perceived erroneous application of law or
appreciation of facts will certainly not be enough to extend the
frontiers of this jurisdiction. The present writ petition by the
convict under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by no stretch
of reasoning would fit into any of the permissible categories of
post conviction exercises permissible in law as laid down by this
Court. The doctrine of ex debito justitiae being circumscribed
by the judgment of this Court in Rupa As/wk Hurra it is for the
petitioner to exhaust the said remedy, if is he-solficlined and so
advised. Merely because in the comprehension of the writ
petitioner the judgment of this Court is erroneous would not
enable the Court to reopen the issue in departure to the
established and settled norms and parameters of the extent of
permis'sible exercise of jurisdiction as well as the procedural law
governing such exercise. (Paras 10 and 13] (891-B-D; 892-B-C]
* Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Am: (2002) 4
SCC 388: 2002 (2) SCR 1006 - relied on.
Kartar Sinl{h v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC
569: 1994 (2) SCR 375; Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaa v.
Registrar, Supreme Court of India and Ors. (2014) 9
SCC 737: 2014 (11) SCR 1009 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
1994 (2) SCR 375
2014 (11) SCR 1009
2002 (2 ) SCR 1006
referred to
referred to
relied on
Para5
Para6
Para6
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 46 of2008.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution ofindia.
c
D
E
F
G
H
886
SUPREME COURT ,REPORTS
[2016] 5 S.C.R.
A
Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Adv., Manu Sharma, Ms. Ridhima Mandhar,
Abhir Datt, Anirudh Anand, Chirag Madan, Sudarshan Rajan, Advs. for
the Petitioner.
R.S. Suri, Sr. Adv., Rajiv Nanda, P. K. Dey, Mukesh Kumar
Maroria, Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Astha Sharma, Ms. Mithu Jain, Puneeth
B
K. G., Advs. for the Respondents.
c
D
E
The Judgment of the CoExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.