2002 (4) TMI 889 - SC - Indian Laws

Power under Art. 129 and Art. 142 can suspend advocate licences or debar advocates, subject to self-limits

SC held that it can, in exercise of its powers under Art. 129 read with Art. 142, pass orders necessary to do complete justice, which may include ... Writ under Article 32 against judgments of the Supreme Court - finality of judgments and doctrine of stare decisis - review under Article 137 - inherent power / curative petition to rectify gross miscarriage of justice - ex debito justitiae - principles of natural justice - apprehension of biasWrit under Article 32 against judgments of the Supreme Court - finality of judgments and doctrine of stare decisis - review under Article 137 - Availability of writ jurisdiction under Article 32 to challenge a final judgment or order of the Supreme Court after dismissal of review petition. - HELD THAT: - The Court reaffirmed that Article 32 cannot be invoked to issue prerogative writs (notably certiorari) to call in and quash its own final judgments or orders. The supervisory writ jurisdiction is directed to inferior courts and authorities; Benches of the Supreme Court are not subordinate to one another and judicial orders of the Court do not fall within Article 32 relief. The settled position in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar, A.R. Antulay and subsequent decisions was applied to hold that an aggrieved person cannot challenge a final judgment of this Court under Article 32 once the remedy of review under Article 137 (read with the Rules) has been exhausted.Article 32 is not available to attack final judgments/orders of the Supreme Court after dismissal of review; finality and stare decisis must ordinarily be respected.Inherent power / curative petition to rectify gross miscarriage of justice - ex debito justitiae - principles of natural justice - apprehension of bias - Whether the Supreme Court may, in rare and exceptional cases, exercise inherent power to re examine its final judgments after dismissal of review petitions and the conditions and procedure for such exercise. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that, notwithstanding finality, it may in the rarest of rare cases re consider a final judgment under its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process or to cure a gross miscarriage of justice (ex debito justitiae). Such relief is limited and sparingly available. The Court specified the narrow grounds warranting a curative petition: (a) violation of principles of natural justice where the petitioner was not a party or was not served and the judgment adversely affected him; and (b) failure of a Judge to disclose connections with the subject matter or parties giving rise to an apprehension of bias. Procedural safeguards were prescribed: the curative petition must aver that these grounds were taken in the review petition and that the review was dismissed by circulation; it must carry a certification by a Senior Advocate; the petition shall be circulated first to a Bench comprising the three senior most Judges and the Judges who passed the impugned judgment (if available); only if a majority of that Bench considers further hearing necessary should the matter be listed (preferably before the same Bench); the Bench may request assistance of a senior counsel as amicus curiae; vexatious or meritless petitions may attract exemplary costs. The Registry was directed to process pending petitions notwithstanding absence of the specific averment in appropriate cases.The Court may entertain a curative petition under its inherent powers in extremely limited circumstances (violation of natural justice or apparent bias), subject to the prescribed certification, circulation and majority screening procedure, and with power to impose costs where appropriate.Final Conclusion: The petitions answer the referenced question by holding that Article 32 cannot be used to challenge final Supreme Court judgments after dismissal of review, but in the rarest of rare cases the Court may, in exercise of its inherent powers (curative jurisdiction ex debito justitiae), re examine a final judgment on narrowly defined grounds of violation of natural justice or apparent bias, subject to the procedural safeguards and certification prescribed. Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 32 can be maintained to challenge a final judgment/order of the Supreme Court after dismissal of a review petition; (ii) Whether, and on what grounds and procedure, the Supreme Court can entertain a curative petition in exercise of its inherent powers to re-consider a final judgment/order after dismissal of review.Issue (i): Whether Article 32 writ jurisdiction is maintainable to question a final judgment/order of the Supreme Court after review has been dismissed.Analysis: The analysis examines the character of writ jurisdiction, historical and precedent authority distinguishing supervisory writs addressed to inferior courts from jurisdiction over co-ordinate or superior Benches, and appellate/review remedies prescribed by the Constitution and Court rules. It considers prior decisions holding that judicial orders of superior courts are not amenable to writs under Article 32 and addresses authorities where final judgments of highest courts were revisited on distinct grounds.Conclusion: Article 32 cannot be invoked to challenge a final judgment/order of the Supreme Court after dismissal of the review petition.Issue (ii): Whether the Supreme Court, in exercise of its inherent or plenary powers, can re-consider a final judgment/order after dismissal of review and, if so, the permissible grounds and procedure for such curative petitions.Analysis: The analysis considers constitutional provisions (Articles 129, 137, 142, 145), Supreme Court Rules (Order XL Rule 1; Order XLVII Rule 6), comparative authorities and precedents where the highest courts corrected their own orders for grave defects. It evaluates competing principles of finality and the duty to prevent irremediable injustice, identifies categories of defect that justify intervention (violation of natural justice affecting a non-notified party or failure to disclose a judge's connection creating apprehension of bias), and prescribes procedural safeguards to prevent abuse, including prior circulation to a bench of senior judges and certification by a Senior Advocate; it also permits imposition of exemplary costs for vexatious petitions.Conclusion: The Supreme Court may, in the rarest of rare cases, exercise inherent or plenary powers to entertain a curative petition after dismissal of review where (a) principles of natural justice were violated in that the petitioner was not served or not a party yet the judgment adversely affected him/her, or (b) a judge failed to disclose a connection giving rise to an apprehension of bias and the judgment adversely affects the petitioner. Such curative petitions must aver that these grounds were taken in the review petition (dismissed on circulation), must be certified by a Senior Advocate, and shall first be circulated to a Bench of the three senior-most Judges including judges who passed the judgment complained of; only on a majority view of that Bench that hearing is warranted shall the matter be listed for hearing, with power to impose costs for frivolous petitions.Final Conclusion: Article 32 is not a vehicle to challenge final Supreme Court judgments after review is dismissed; however, a limited curative mechanism under the Court's inherent/plenary powers exists for rare, narrowly defined defects (violation of natural justice or apparent bias) subject to strict procedural safeguards to prevent abuse.Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court's inherent and plenary powers permit reconsideration of a final judgment in narrowly confined, exceptional circumstances to prevent irremediable miscarriage of justicespecifically where there is a proven violation of natural justice affecting a non-notified party or nondisclosure by a judge giving rise to apprehension of biasand such recourse is subject to prescribed procedural safeguards to protect finality and prevent abuse.