LexP. N. ESWARA IYER versus THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
r ,f P. N. ESW ARA IYER. v. TilE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA February 1, 1980 11119 A [V. R. KRISHNA IYER, S .. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, D. A. DESAI, B R. S. PATHAK AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.] Supreme Court Rules 1966-0.XL, rules 2 and 3 Scope of-Disposal of re- view 'etitions by circulation withDllt oral arguments-If violative of Art. 14. Order XL, rule 2(1) of the Supreme Court Rules (as amended) provides that an application for review shall be by a petition and shall be filed within thirty days from the date of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. It shall set out clearly the grounds for review. Sub-rule (3) provides that "un- less otherwise ordered by the Court an application for review shall be disposed of by circulation without any oral a-rguments but the petitioner may supplement his petition by additional written arguments". c In a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioners contended D t:h.at scuttling of oral presentation Qnd open hearing is subversive of the basic creed that public justice shall be rendered from the public seat Ol1d that secrecy 8lld circulation are negation of judicial justice. Dismissing the petitions, HELD : per Krishna Iyer, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and Desai, JJ (Pathak and Kosltal JJ concurring). E Unchecked review has never been the rule·. A review petition must be sup- ported by proper grounds because otherwise every disappointed litigant' may ave.ge his defeat by a routine review petition. [895D] The original rule required a certificate by the advocate to the effect that the petition was review-worthy. If it was so certified then a preliminary oral hear.. F ing followed. After such oral argument the court issued notice to the other side or_ dismissed the petition. But as it turned out, laxity in certification and pro•iscuity in filing review applications crowded the court with unwanted re- view petitions and the very solemnity of finality would bo fruslralcd if such a garlle were to become popular. [895E-H] The amended rule is designed to remove the evil of reckless reviews by the futroduction of preliminary judicial screening in circulation replacing counsel's certification. If the review petition and written submissions convinced the court prima facie that material error bad marred the justice or legality of the oarlier. judgment or order,. the case would be posted for oral hearing in court. Now 'certworthiness' is shifted from coU11Bel to court. [896H] Circulation in the judicial context merely means not in court through oral argu- ments but by· discussion at judicial conference. Judges, even under the an1ended rule, must meet, collectively cere9rate and reach conclusions. In a review peti- tion the same judges \'i'hO have once heard oral arguments and are familiar with G B / ' j 890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R. • A the case direct a hearing in court if they find good grounds. It is not as if all oml advocacy is altogether shut out. Where oral presentation is not that essen· tial its exclusion is not obnoxious. What is crucial is the guarantee of the • application of an impartial and open mind to the points presented. If withont much injury a certain class of cases can be disposed of without oral hearing, there is no good reason for not making such an experiment. If on a close perusal of the jl<lper book the judges find that there is no merit or statable case, ·n there is no special virtue in sanctifying the dismissal by an oral ritual. [898E, 899E, 900CJ c D The rule on its face affords a wider set of grounds for review for orders in civil proceedings but limits the grounds vis a vis criminal proceedings to errors apparent on the face of the record. fiere "record" means any material which is already on record or n1ay with the permission of the court be brought on record. [909C] The substanti\'e power is defived front ~l\.rticle. J 37 and is as \vide for crimi~ nal as for civil proceedings. Even the difference in phraseology in the rule (r. 2) must be reJd to encompass the same area and uot to engraft the artifi~ cial divergence prolluctive of anomaly. If the expression ~·record" is read to moon any material cvt!n later brought on record, \Vith the leave of the court. it will embrace subsequent events, ne\V light and other grounds which are found in 0. 47, r. I, C.P.C. [909G-H] l Sow Chandra Kanta and Anr. v. Sheik Habib ::1975] 3 SCR 933; Lala Ram • v. Supreme Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.