2002 (4) TMI 889 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the punishment of debarring an advocate from practice and suspending his licence for a specified period could be passed in exercise of power of this Court under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India? Held that - The construction of Article 142 must be functionally informed by the salutary purposes of the article, viz., to do complete justice between the parties. It cannot be otherwise. As already noticed in a case of contempt of court, the contemner and the court cannot be said to be litigating parties. The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 has the power to make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice between the parties in any cause or matter pending before it . The very nature of the power must lead the Court to set limits for itself within which to exercise those powers and ordinarily it cannot disregard a statutory provision governing a subject, except perhaps to balance the equities between the conflicting claims of the litigating parties by ironing out the creases in a cause or matter before it. Indeed this Court is not a court of restricted jurisdiction of only dispute-settling. It is well recognised and established that this Court has always been a law-maker and its role travels beyond merely dispute-settling. It is a problem-solver in the nebulous areas

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the judgment of the Supreme Court dated March 10, 7 in Civil Appeal No.1843 of 1997 can be regarded as a nullity.
2. Whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution can be maintained to question the validity of a judgment of the Supreme Court after the petition for review of the said judgment has been dismissed.
3. Whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against a final judgment/order of the Supreme Court, after dismissal of review petition, either under Article 32 of the Constitution or otherwise.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Nullity of the Supreme Court Judgment:
The judgment addresses whether the Supreme Court's judgment dated March 10, 1997, can be considered a nullity. The court explored the historical and legal context of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and powers as established by the Constitution, particularly under Article 124, which specifies the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and powers, including original jurisdiction (Articles 32 and 131), appellate jurisdiction (Articles 132, 133, 134), discretionary jurisdiction (Article 136), and powers to pass decrees or orders for complete justice (Article 142). The court concluded that the Supreme Court's judgments are final and binding, and cannot be regarded as nullities unless there is a gross miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice.

2. Maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 32:
The court examined whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution can be maintained to question the validity of a Supreme Court judgment after the dismissal of a review petition. Article 32 guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights and empowers the court to issue directions or orders or writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari. The court emphasized that judicial orders of superior courts do not violate fundamental rights and are not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 32. The court cited precedents, including Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. State of Maharashtra and A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak, to affirm that judicial orders of the Supreme Court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 32.

3. Relief Against Final Judgment/Order After Dismissal of Review Petition:
The judgment addressed whether an aggrieved person can seek relief against a final judgment/order of the Supreme Court after the dismissal of a review petition. The court acknowledged the inherent powers of the Supreme Court to prevent abuse of its process and to cure gross miscarriages of justice. The court recognized that in rarest of rare cases, where there is a violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or gross miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court can reconsider its final judgments. The court laid down specific requirements for entertaining such curative petitions, including certification by a Senior Advocate and initial circulation to a Bench of the three senior-most Judges and the Judges who passed the judgment complained of.

Separate Judgments:
While the majority opinion was delivered collectively, Justice Banerjee added a concurring opinion, emphasizing the importance of flexibility in the justice delivery system and the need for the Supreme Court to exercise its inherent powers to correct manifest injustices. Justice Banerjee concurred with the majority opinion but highlighted the significance of the doctrine of ex debito justitiae and the need for the court to adapt to changing socio-economic conditions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that its final judgments are not amenable to challenge under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, in rare cases of gross miscarriage of justice, violation of principles of natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction, the court can exercise its inherent powers to reconsider its judgments. The court provided guidelines for entertaining curative petitions to ensure that such petitions are not filed as a matter of course but only in exceptional circumstances.

← Previous Next →