IT MAY BE NEW TO BANK RETIREES WHO ARE IN LEGAL ARENA FOR MORE THAN A QUARTER CENTURY, and though seems to be odd, SUPREME COURT APPROVES THIS AS 'INHERENT POWERS'.
when can a court recall a judgement it has delivered and in what circumstances could the power to recall be exercised?
A catena of Supreme Court and High Court judgements has gone into this question. They primarily involve the interpretation of specific sections in the civil and criminal procedure codes that bestow on courts certain inherent powers.
One of the often cited cases in this matter is Antulay vs RS Nayak , in which a seven-member Constitution bench of the apex court reiterated its powers to recall judgements under certain circumstances. "The injustice done should be corrected by applying the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit , an act of the court shall prejudice no one," the bench said.
InState of Orissa vs Janamohan Das , the Odisha High Court elaborated the principle set in Antulay and said there has to be "substantial injury to the suitor" to recall an order.
"..while conceding the power of recall available to this Court, we would say that the same would be exercisable only in exceptional cases where the mistake committed by the court is palpable and is such which, by its own force, has caused substantial injury to a suitor."
Former Additional Solicitor General, P. Wilson, said that in case of a writ petition, the High Court would draw its 'powers to recall' from Article 226 of the Constitution.
Those interested can see elaboration of the matter furnished below the FEDERATION'S CIRCULAR as here.
= VBV Ramesh
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVCIVIL APPEAL Nos. 8420-8421 of 2013A.B KAA B KASTHURIRANGAN & ORS ...APPELLANT(S)VERSUSCANARA BCANARA BANK & ORS.Thanks ...RESPONDENT(S)
"Power of recall exercisable only in exceptional cases"On July 10th 2015, Justice P. Devadas of the Madras High Court recalled an order issued a month back advising mediation between a rape survivor and a convict.When the original order was delivered on June 10th, it attracted wide criticism from the civil society and the legal fraternity, which called the liberal approach to rape cases a bad precedent. Hence, it was no surprise that his decision to take note of a Supreme Court verdict and modify his pronouncement was welcomed.JUDGEMENT RECALLED IN LIGHT OF RTI ACTIt was only last year that a division bench of the Madras High Court recalled and omitted two paragraphs of a judgement in which it observed that the reason for seeking information had to be disclosed in an RTI application. The amendment was done after it came to light that the RTI Act itself states that no such reason is necessary to get information.In May 2015, the verdict in the disproportionate assets case involving Chief Minister Jayalalithaa in the Karnataka High Court evoked questions of whether a court suo motu could revisit its verdict, after claims of arithmetical errors in the judgement surfacedJudges can recall orders passed in open courtsCan an order dictated in an open court in the presence of lawyers and parties be recalled by judges?The Supreme Court has ruled in the affirmative, holding that even an order which has been pronounced in an open court can be recalled in the interest of justice and that there was no impediment in the law against it.A three-judge bench headed by Justice B S Chuhan has said there is no provision in the law as well as the corresponding rules that restrains a court from changing its order if the one dictated in the open court is subsequently found to be suffering with grave infirmities, either on facts or on law."A judge's responsibility is very heavy…particularly in a case where a man's life and liberty hang upon his decision, nothing can be left to chance or doubt or conjecture. Therefore, one cannot assume that the judge would not have changed his mind before the judgment becomes final," held the court
No comments:
Post a Comment