Sabarimala Reference: SC Gives Reasons For Holding That Questions Of Law Can Be Referred To Larger Bench In Review [Read Order]

The Supreme Court has passed an order detailing the reasons for holding that it can refer questions of law to a larger bench in a review petition. The 9 judge bench headed by CJI SA Bobde had on February 10 dismissed the objections regarding the maintainability of reference in Sabarimala Review Petitions. On that occasion, the bench had stated that it will give reasons for the conclusion later. Now, in the judgment released on Monday in the case titled Kantararu Rajeevaru vs Indian Young Lawyers Association, the Court has given its reasons for holding that there is no bar for referring questions of law to a larger bench on a review. Limitations In Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules Not Applicable To Orders/Judgments In Writ Petitions One of the contentions raised was that the review petitions are not maintainable in view of the limitations in Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Therefore, it was urged that since the review petitions are liable to be dismissed, the reference is bad. The Court noted that the Article 137 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it subject to the provisions of any law made by the Parliament or any rules made under Article 145. It observed: Civil proceedings and criminal proceedings dealt with in Part II of the Rules are different from Writ Petitions covered by Part III of the Supreme Court Rules. The exceptions carved out in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules pertain only to civil and criminal proceedings. Writ Petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India do not fall within the purview of civil and criminal proceedings. Therefore, the limitations in Order XLVII, Rule 1 do not apply to review petitions filed against judgments or orders passed in Writ Petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Interpreting the Rule, the court said that there is no limitation for the exercise of power by this Court in review petitions filed against judgments and orders in proceedings other than civil proceeding or criminal proceedings. It said: Construction of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules should be made by giving due weight to the punctuation mark 'comma' after the words "the Court may review its judgment or order". The intention of the rule making authority is clear that the above mentioned part is disjunctive from the rest of the rule. Moreover, the words "but no application for review will be entertained in a civil proceeding except on ground mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code and in a criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of record" are exceptions to the opening words of Order XLVII Rule 1, namely, "the Court may review its judgment or order". Therefore, there is no limitation for the exercise of power by this Court in review petitions filed against judgments and orders in proceedings other than civil proceeding or criminal proceedings. ' Reference Can Be Made In A Pending Review Petition Another contention was that a reference can be made only after the grant of review and not in a pending review petition. Disagreeing with that, the bench observed: Reference to a larger bench can be made in any cause or appeal as well as in any 'other proceeding'. The term 'proceeding' is a very comprehensive term and generally speaking, means a prescribed course of action for enforcing a legal right. It is a term giving the widest freedom to a Court of law so that it may do justice to the parties in the case . There cannot be any doubt that the pending review petition falls within the purview of the expression "other proceeding". The reference has been made in the course of pending review petitions. No Matter Is Beyond Jurisdiction Of Superior Court Of RecordThe Court also added that no matter is beyond the jurisdiction of a superior Court of record unless it is expressly shown to be so, under the provisions of the Constitution. In the absence of any express provision in the Constitution, this Court being a superior Court of record has jurisdiction in every matter and if there is any doubt, the Court has power to determine its jurisdiction, it said. It observed thus: In addition, there is no fetter on the exercise of discretion of this Court in referring questions of law to a larger bench in review petitions. Being a superior Court of record, it is for this Court to consider whether any matter falls within its jurisdiction or not. Unlike a Court of limited jurisdiction, the superior Court of record is entitled to determine for itself questions about its own jurisdiction. Article 142 Justifies The ReferenceReferring to Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the bench said that the same enables it to make any order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. "The expression 'cause' or 'matter' would include any proceeding...

Sabarimala Reference: SC Gives Reasons For Holding That Questions Of Law Can Be Referred To Larger Bench In Review [Read Order]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Sabarimala Reference: SC Gives Reasons For Holding That Questions Of Law Can Be Referred To Larger Bench In Review [Read Order]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers