Previous Year Question
With reference to the Indian judiciary, consider the following statements:
Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the President of India.
A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does.
Which of the statement(s) given above is/are correct?
1 only
2 only
Both 1 and 2
Neither 1 nor 2
Correct Answer: C
Detailed Solution
Statement 1 is correct
Article 128 deals with the attendance of retired judges at sittings of the Supreme Court.
The Chief Justice of India, with the previous consent of the President, may request the following persons to sit and act as a judge of the Supreme Court:
A former judge of the Supreme Court;
A former judge of the Federal Court; or
A former judge of a High Court who is duly qualified for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court.
The consent of the concerned person is also necessary; the individual cannot be compelled to sit against his or her will.
While such a person sits and acts in the Supreme Court:
The person receives allowances determined by an order of the President.
The person exercises the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of a Supreme Court judge.
The person is not otherwise deemed to be a permanent judge of the Supreme Court merely because of such service.
Statement 2 is correct
A High Court also possesses the power to review its own judgment or order.
The Supreme Court’s review power is expressly based on Article 137. It authorises the Supreme Court, subject to a law made by Parliament and rules framed under Article 145, to review its judgments and orders.
Although there is no separate provision for High Courts identical to Article 137:
Article 215 declares every High Court to be a court of record.
While exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, a High Court possesses inherent power to review its own orders.
In civil proceedings, review is also regulated by Section 114 and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.
A High Court may exercise review jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process, correct a manifest error and prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Review distinguished from appeal
A review is not a complete rehearing of the case. It is ordinarily permitted on grounds such as:
Discovery of new and important evidence which could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence;
An error apparent on the face of the record; or
Another sufficient reason.
In an appeal, a superior court examines the decision of a lower court. In a review, the same court re-examines its own decision on limited grounds.