2011 (3) TMI 252 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay - Special Leave Petition - Power of review - it will make no difference whether the review petition was filed in the High Court before the dismissal of the special leave petition or after the dismissal of the special leave petition - It is well settled that special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary remedy, and hence a special leave petition can be dismissed for a variety of reasons and not necessarily on merits - if the review petition is filed in the High Court after the dismissal of the special leave petition, it would be treated as an affront to the order of the Supreme Court - By a judicial order, the power of review cannot be taken away as that has been conferred by the statute or the Constitution - Delay is condoned

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing a review petition.
2. Maintainability of a review petition after the dismissal of a special leave petition.
3. Interpretation of the doctrine of merger in the context of review petitions.
4. Precedential value of observations in a judgment.

Condonation of Delay in Filing a Review Petition:
The Supreme Court allowed an appeal against the High Court's order dismissing a review petition due to a 71-day delay in filing. The Court opined that a liberal view should have been taken by the High Court to condone the delay and decide the review petition on its merits. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for review.

Maintainability of Review Petition Post Dismissal of Special Leave Petition:
The respondent argued that the review petition was not maintainable as a special leave petition filed earlier had been dismissed by the Supreme Court. The respondent relied on a distinction between filing a review petition before or after the dismissal of a special leave petition. However, the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of merger applies, and if a special leave petition is dismissed with reasons, the judgment of the lower court merges into the Supreme Court's order, rendering a review of the lower court's judgment impossible.

Interpretation of Doctrine of Merger:
The Court clarified that when a special leave petition is dismissed with reasons, even if minimal, there is a merger of the lower court's judgment into the Supreme Court's order. In such cases, the lower court's judgment ceases to exist, and hence, a review of that judgment is not possible. However, if a special leave petition is dismissed without reasons, the judgment of the lower court continues to exist, allowing for a review limited to errors apparent on the face of the record.

Precedential Value of Observations in a Judgment:
The Court addressed the respondent's reliance on certain observations in a previous judgment regarding the filing of review petitions post dismissal of special leave petitions. The Court dismissed the notion that such observations constitute a binding precedent, emphasizing that a mere stray observation does not establish a legal principle. The Court reiterated that judicial orders cannot override statutory provisions and held that the power of review cannot be curtailed by judicial orders.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, condoned the delay in filing the review petition, and remanded the matter to the High Court for a review on merits in accordance with the law.