1950 (10) TMI 16 - HC - Indian Laws

Limitations on Review Applications under Criminal Procedure Code and Constitution

In Re: Prahlad Krishna Kurne

The court held that a review application under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not permissible after rejection by judges. While Article 226 ... - Issues:1. Whether a review application under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code is permissible after rejection by judges.2. Whether Article 226 of the Constitution allows for successive applications to different judges for the enforcement of fundamental rights.3. Whether the right to approach different judges or courts for habeas corpus relief is applicable in India.4. Whether the High Court's decision under Article 226 can be reviewed by another judge or court.5. What remedies are available to a citizen if the High Court refuses to enforce fundamental rights under Article 226.Analysis:1. The judgment addressed the issue of whether a review application under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code is permissible after being rejected by judges. The petitioner sought a review of the rejection order, arguing that Article 226 of the Constitution enhances citizens' rights to present successive applications to different judges. However, it was established that a review application would not lie as per a Full Bench decision. The court clarified that under Section 491, successive applications may not be permissible, but Article 226 empowers the High Court to issue directions for the enforcement of fundamental rights, potentially allowing for the issuance of habeas corpus writs beyond Section 491.2. The judgment examined the right to approach different judges or courts for habeas corpus relief, comparing the position in England with that in India. It was highlighted that in England, the right was to approach different courts or tribunals, not individual judges. The court discussed a Privy Council decision regarding the rights of citizens in England to move different courts for habeas corpus relief. In India, orders under Section 491 are passed by the High Court acting through nominated judges, and there is no provision for individual judges to exercise independent jurisdiction in such matters.3. The judgment delved into whether the High Court's decision under Article 226 can be reviewed by another judge or court. It was emphasized that the High Court acts as a whole when hearing applications under Article 226, and its decisions are not attributed to individual judges or benches. The court clarified that no inherent power of review exists, and the principle of finality applies to judgments of the High Court, whether under Section 491 or Article 226. The judgment underscored that the High Court, not individual judges, has the jurisdiction to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 226.4. The judgment also explored the remedies available to a citizen if the High Court refuses to enforce fundamental rights under Article 226. While the High Court's decision may become final, citizens have the right to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 or seek appeal under Article 136. The powers of the High Court and the Supreme Court in enforcing fundamental rights are concurrent, providing citizens with alternative avenues for relief if the High Court's decision is unfavorable.5. The court ultimately refused the application as incompetent, emphasizing that the High Court's decision must be respected for finality. Despite this, the judgment acknowledged the possibility of erroneous decisions and highlighted the availability of remedies such as approaching the Supreme Court for relief. The court expressed hope that the government would review cases where necessary to ensure justice is served.