Error apparent and discretionary appellate review: jurisdictional objections need not be decided absent failure of justice.
Review is not justified merely because statutory provisions were not separately discussed if their consideration would not have changed the earlier conclusion, and an omission is not an error apparent unless it affects the result recorded. The commentary also states that under Article 136, the Supreme Court's power is discretionary and it is not bound to decide every jurisdictional objection once it is satisfied that no failure of justice has occurred. Special leave does not convert that discretion into a duty to pronounce on jurisdiction in every case, and the jurisdictional issue may be left open where interference is unwarranted.
Issues: (i) Whether the alleged omission to consider provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record so as to justify review. (ii) Whether, in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Court was bound to decide the jurisdictional question even when it concluded that there had been no failure of justice.
Issue (i): Whether the alleged omission to consider provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record so as to justify review.
Analysis: A review could not be granted merely because certain statutory provisions were not separately adverted to, if consideration of those provisions would not have altered the conclusion already reached. The decisive matter was whether the omission produced a result different from the one actually recorded. On the facts, the Court found that the earlier conclusion on absence of failure of justice would remain unchanged even on a fuller consideration of the said provisions.
Conclusion: The alleged omission did not furnish a ground for review and was not an error warranting reopening of the judgment.
Issue (ii): Whether, in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Court was bound to decide the jurisdictional question even when it concluded that there had been no failure of justice.
Analysis: The power under Article 136 is discretionary, and the Court is not obliged to examine and pronounce upon every jurisdictional objection if it is satisfied that no failure of justice has occurred. A jurisdictional doubt may be left open where the higher tribunal has already considered the matter and the Court sees no reason to interfere. The fact that special leave had been granted did not convert the discretionary power into an obligation to decide the merits in every case.
Conclusion: The Court was not bound to decide the jurisdictional issue once it had concluded that there was no failure of justice.
Final Conclusion: The review application failed because no ground sufficient to reopen the earlier judgment was shown, and the Court affirmed that it could decline interference under Article 136 where no failure of justice was made out.
Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Court may decline to decide a jurisdictional question and refuse interference where it is satisfied that no failure of justice has occurred; such a course does not amount to an error warranting review.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
