Should A Judgment Be Reviewed Because It Followed A Precedent Which Was Later Overruled? Supreme Court Bench Delivers Split Verdict

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, on Friday, took a divergent view on the scope of review, when the judgment relied on in the impugned order and all subsequent judgment that followed it is eventually overruled by a superior court.While Justice MR Shah allowed the review petitions, Justice BV Nagarathna opined that they are not maintainable and are in the teeth of the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure (Application for review of judgment) which categorically states that a fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.BackgroundSection 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, 2013, which is essentially a saving clause came to be interpreted in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki. In Indore Development Authority v Shailendra the interpretation was referred to a Three-Judge Bench, which considered the issue and decided that Pune Municipal Corporation did not cover certain aspects of the interpretation of Section 24(2) and the matter was referred to a Larger Bench. In other similar matters reference was also made to a larger bench. In Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, a Constitution Bench overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and all other decisions where Pune Municipal Corporation was followed. After the decision in Indore Development Authority, the present batch of petitions have been filed by land acquiring authorities/States seeking review of the Special Leave Petitions and Civil Appeals that were disposed of in terms of the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation. The review petitioners have argued that Indore Development Authority explicitly overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and also all other subsequent judgments that had followed Pune Municipal Corporation. They seek recalling of the judgment and to restore the Civil Appeals and SLPs. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the review petitions. The argument put forth by the respondents is that when in Indore Development Authority, the Constitution Bench held that Pune Municipal Corporation and all the judgments where it was followed is overruled, they were denuded of their precedential authority, but the decisions in these cases are still binding on the parties involved. Relying on Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, it was argued that when a decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of the superior Court, it shall not be a ground for review of such judgment. In particular, they referred to the judgment in Beghar Foundation v. Justice KS Puttaswamy And Ors., wherein while considering the review petition filed against the judgment in Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar judgment) it was observed that change in law or subsequent decisions of a Larger Bench by itself is not a ground of seeking relief by filing a review petition. The respondents also raised objections with respect to the delay in filing the review petitions.Analysis by the Supreme CourtJustice Nagarathna noted that Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 states that in any civil case review lies on the grounds stated under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. There are broadly three grounds under the said provision and they are as follows: i) due to discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person aggrieved or the person seeking review could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, orii) due to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, oriii) on account of any other sufficient reason, may seek review of a judgment or order of this Court.The Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 reads as under - a fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.In the present case, the review petitioner have sought review on the (iii) ground i.e., “on account of any other sufficient reason”. However, the expression is not defined in CPC. Referring to three judgments, the judge observed that “other sufficient reason” must be analogous to the two other reasons mentioned in the provision. It was noted that although the expression “for any other sufficient reason” is wide enough to take into its scope any situation which is not covered by (i) and (ii), but if a decision of a court is reopened on the basis of a subsequent decision there would be no finality of judgment between the parties. Even if a judgment is subsequently held to be erroneous and is...

Should A Judgment Be Reviewed Because It Followed A Precedent Which Was Later Overruled? Supreme Court Bench Delivers Split Verdict

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Should A Judgment Be Reviewed Because It Followed A Precedent Which Was Later Overruled? Supreme Court Bench Delivers Split Verdict

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers