Published on: April 21, 16:29 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: P.N. Eswara Iyer v. Supreme Court of India 1980
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that Review Petition is to be restricted to the judicial process with limited scope. It is held that the same Judges who have heard Oral Arguments and are familiar with the merits of the case- may direct a hearing in court if they find good grounds. It is held that the Review Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India allows only for the scrutiny of the Review Petition on the written brief and it may dismiss by circulation if not on merit.
20. We agree that the normal rule of the judicial process is oral hearing and its elimination an unusual exception. We are now on the vires of a rule relating to review in the highest Court. A full-dress hearing, to the abundant accompaniment of public presence and oral submission, is over. It is a second probe. Here written arguments are given. The entire papers are with the Judges. The Judges themselves are the same persons who have heard oral presentation earlier. Moreover, it is a plurality of Judges, not only one. Above all, if prima facie grounds are made out a further oral hearing is directed. Granting basic bona fides in the Judges of the highest Court, it is impossible to argue that partial foreclosure of oral arguments in court is either unfair or unreasonable or so vicious an invasion of natural justice as to be ostracised from our constitutional jurisprudence. It must be remembered that review is not a second dose of the same arguments once considered and rejected. The rejection might have been wrong but that cannot be helped. Dissenting minorities regard the dominant majorities wrong in their judgments but there is no helping it.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
