Constitution of India:
Arts. 137 and 145 r/w Order XLVII rule 1 and Order XXXIX Rule 2 of Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Review jurisdiction – Scope and ambit of – By order dated 18.05.2018, a criminal case was transferred from the court of Delhi to the Court at Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh – The informant of the criminal case, who was not impleaded as party in the transfer petition, filed Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order dated 18.05.2018 – The Application was dismissed – Review petition by the informant – Held: The review petitioner has right to exercise statutory jurisdiction of filing application for review – Mere rejection of the application for recalling the order dated 18.05.2018,would not preclude the petitioner from filing the review petition – The order sought to be reviewed, having been passed on the first day of hearing without issuing notice u/Order XXXIX, Rule 2, there is an error apparent on the face of the record and the same needs to be corrected – Order dated 18.05.2018 is recalled and the Transfer Petition is revived, impleading the review petitioner as respondent therein. Allowing the Review Petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 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 of the Constitution. 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. [Para 16][471-G-H]
1.2 The review petition, which has been filed by the review petitioner to review the judgment is referable to Article 137 of the Constitution read with Order XLVII of Supreme Court Rules, 2013, framed under Article 145 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of this Court to review is, thus, specifically provided in the Constitution as well as Rules framed under Article 145. [Paras 9, 10 and 11][467-E, G; 468-B-C]
Vikram Singh alias Vicky Walia and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and Anr., (2017) 8 SCC 518 : [2017] 8 SCR 177 – relied on.
Mukesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 8 SCC 149 : [2018] 7 SCR 898 – referred to.
1.3 By mere rejection of Miscellaneous Application (MA.) filed by the review petitioner, the review petitioner cannot be precluded from filing the present review petition. 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 of Supreme Court Rules. [Paras 13 and 15][471-D-E; 470-G-H]
1.4 This Court with regard to filing of applications styled as application for clarification, modification or recall of the judgment has observed that in substance those applications are for review and they should not be entertained and the applicants be given leave to file a review applications which may be dealt with as per the Rules of the Court. [Para 14][471-A-B]
1.5 The plea that all grounds which have been taken in the review petition were earlier taken in M.A., and due to rejection of M.A. they cannot be re-agitated, cannot be acceded to. The order passed in M.A. does not indicate that any of the issues which were raised were considered and decided by this Court, and further the review being statutory proceeding, cannot be considered on the specious plea raised by the respondents. [Para 15][471-E-F]
Delhi Administration vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 296:[2000] 2 Suppl. SCR 496 – relied on.
2.1 A perusal of the order dated 18.05.2018 in the transfer petition indicates that the order was passed on the preliminary hearing of the transfer petition and before passing the order, no notice was issued under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. 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 liberty was granted by this Court on 18.05.2018 that order being ex-parte, it will be open to respondents to approach this Court, if aggrieved. In the transfer petition, review petitioner was not one of the respondents, hence, it cannot be said that liberty was exhausted by filing M.A. by review petitioner. The review petitioner has right to exercise statutory jurisdiction of filing application for review of the judgment. [Paras 17 and 18][472-A-B, F-H]
M.S. Ahlawat vs. State of Haryna and Anr., (2000) 1 SCC 278 : [1999] 4 Suppl. SCR 160 – relied on.
2.2 Having found that there was error apparent in the order dated 18.05.2018, the said order has to be corrected. Thus, the review petition is allowed and the order dated 18.05.2018 is recalled. Consequently the Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.262 of 2018 is revived. The review petitioner is impleaded as respondent No.4 in the transfer petition. [Para 20][473-E-F]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.