Tanvi Sinha
A three-judge bench comprising of Justice Sanjay K Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy in the Supreme Court noted that if there was an option of appealing against the decision of the Supreme Court to a higher court, it would have had many instances of reversed orders.
The court was entertaining a petition that had come after the petitioners received unsatisfactory rulings regarding their appeals from the high courts and the lower courts.
The petitioners had appealed to the courts regarding their eviction from their flats which according to them was done unfairly.
The top court claimed that specially in circumstances of concurrent findings there was not as much of a need of the top court’s intervention. It does bring to question of how much the top court could prove that all the subordinate courts could not.
The high court found no fault towards the eviction and the Supreme Court failed to understand what reasons could possibly be available for their interference when there was a clear cut reason for the ruling of the High Court.
The bench headed by Justice Kaul said that there needed to be an end to the unnecessary appeals passed against every ruling of subordinate courts. The court observed a need of avoiding the top court’s intervention at times in these situations.
Justice Kaul further said that if these matters are taken with extreme minuteness and subjectivity, their genuine duty will be underperformed.
Hence agreeing with the High Court, the top court upheld the eviction of the petitioners that was being contended in the appeal.