You are on page 1of 1

SUBROTA ROY SAHARA CASE

Relying on the above provisions, learned senior Counsel asserted, that "maintainability exists, because
we can all make mistakes, and the mistakes that we make, need to be corrected". The submission of
the learned Counsel in this behalf was, that in the above view of the matter, jurisdiction could truly be
traced, to Articles 129 and 142 for correcting mistakes. It was the submission of the learned Counsel,
that this Court being a Court of record, had unlimited jurisdiction to correct all mistakes committed by
it.
Referring to Article 142 of the Constitution of India it was submitted, that it was the pious obligation of
Court to do complete justice, and accordingly, whenever injustice was traceable, it was imperative for
this Court to rectify the same.
On the subject under reference, learned senior Counsel relied on the decision in Rupa Ashok Hurra's
case (supra) and invited our pointed attention to following observations recorded therein:
23. These contentions pose the question, whether an order passed by this Court can be
corrected under its inherent powers after dismissal of the review petition on the ground that it was
passed either without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice or due to unfair
procedure giving scope for bias which resulted in abuse of the process of the Court or miscarriage of
justice to an aggrieved person.

The upshot of the discussion in our view is that this Court, to prevent abuse of its process and to cure
a gross miscarriage of justice, may re-consider its judgments in exercise of its inherent power.
The instant petition has been styled as a criminal writ petition.

Moreover, our deliberations on the merits of the controversy further reveals, that there is neither any
jurisdictional error, nor any error in law has been shown to be made out.

CONCLUSION:

Disobedience of orders of a Court strikes at the very root of the rule of law, on which the judicial
system rests. Judicial orders are bound to be obeyed at all costs. Howsoever grave the effect may be,
is no answer for non-compliance of a judicial order. Judicial orders cannot be permitted to be
circumvented. In exercise of contempt jurisdiction, Courts have the power to enforce compliance of
judicial orders, and also, the power to punish for contempt.

The law laid down by this Court in Jaswant Singh v. Virender Singh and Ors.
MANU/SC/0107/1995 : 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 384, has been found to be fully applicable to the
facts of this case, particularly the mannerism and demeanour exhibited by the Petitioner and
some of the learned Counsel. Our recusal from the case sought on the ground of bias, has
been found to be devoid of any merit. Each and every insinuation levelled by the Petitioner
and his learned senior Counsel, during the course of hearing, has been considered and
rejected on merits.

The submission advanced by Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior Counsel asserting the
maintainability of the instant petition under the maxim of ex debito justitiae, expressly
recognized by this Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak MANU/SC/0002/1988 : (1988) 2 SCC
602, is held to be devoid of any merit, consequent upon a detailed analysis of the judgment
relied upon. The contention advanced by Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior Counsel for the
Petitioner, projecting the maintainability of the instant petition under Article 32 read with
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has been found to be unacceptable in law on the basis
of a series of judgments rendered by this Court. The submission advanced by Dr. Rajeev
Dhawan, learned senior Counsel representing the Petitioner, supporting the maintainability of
the instant petition by placing collective reliance on Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution
of India, has also been found to be ill-founded. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no
merit in the present petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed.

You might also like