LEGAL ISSUE: Review of a previous order of the Supreme Court. CASE TYPE: Civil Review Petition. Case Name: Abhinitam Upadhyay vs. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. [Judgment Date]: January 11, 2022.
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: January 11, 2022. Citation: Not Available. Judges: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Ajay Rastogi. Can a review petition be entertained if there is no apparent error on record? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving a review petition against its own order. This case highlights the importance of finality in judicial decisions and the limited scope of review jurisdiction. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Case Background
The case involves a review petition filed by Abhinitam Upadhyay against an earlier order passed by the Supreme Court. The petitioner sought a review of the order dated 05.07.2021. The specific details of the original case and the order being reviewed are not detailed in the provided text, but it is clear that the petitioner was not satisfied with the previous decision and sought to have it reconsidered. The review petition was filed in the Supreme Court of India.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 5, 2021 | Supreme Court issues an order that is the subject of the review petition. |
| January 11, 2022 | Supreme Court dismisses the review petition. |
Course of Proceedings
The provided text indicates that the review petition was filed against the order dated 05.07.2021. The Supreme Court considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners in the review petition. However, there is no mention of any lower court proceedings or appeals in the provided text.
Legal Framework
The judgment does not explicitly mention any specific legal provisions or statutes. However, the inherent power of the Supreme Court to review its own judgments is implied. The Supreme Court’s power to review its judgments stems from the principle that there should be finality to judicial decisions, and review is only permissible in limited circumstances, such as when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The judgment implicitly refers to the principles governing review jurisdiction, which are designed to prevent the reopening of cases unless there is a clear justification.
Arguments
The petitioner’s arguments were based on the grounds raised in the review petition. The Supreme Court noted that these submissions were already addressed in the order dated 05.07.2021. The court did not find any new grounds that would constitute an error apparent on record. The court’s reasoning suggests that the petitioner did not present any new substantial arguments that were not previously considered by the court. The court did not elaborate on the specific grounds raised by the petitioner.
| Party | Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Petitioner (Abhinitam Upadhyay) | Review of the order dated 05.07.2021 |
|
| Respondent (Hon’ble Allahabad High Court) | No specific submissions mentioned in the provided text. |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the implicit issue before the court was:
- Whether the grounds raised in the review petition constitute an error apparent on record to justify interference with the order dated 05.07.2021.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the grounds raised in the review petition constitute an error apparent on record to justify interference with the order dated 05.07.2021. | The Court dismissed the review petition. | The Court found that the grounds raised in the review petition did not reveal any error apparent on record that would justify interference with the previous order. |
Authorities
The judgment does not explicitly cite any specific cases, books, or legal provisions. The decision is based on the court’s assessment of the review petition and the absence of any apparent error on record. The court implicitly relied on the principles governing review jurisdiction, which do not allow for a rehearing of the case unless there is a clear error on the face of the record.
| Authority | Type | How it was used | Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| Principles of Review Jurisdiction | Legal Principle | Implicitly relied upon to determine if there was an error apparent on record. | Supreme Court of India |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s submissions for review of the order dated 05.07.2021. | The Court found no error apparent on record to justify interference and dismissed the review petition. |
The judgment does not cite any authorities explicitly. However, the court’s decision was based on the implicit understanding of the principles governing review jurisdiction. The court held that the grounds raised in the review petition did not reveal any error apparent on record that would justify interference with the previous order. The court stated, “The grounds raised in the review petition do not make out any error apparent on record to justify interference.”
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| Principles of Review Jurisdiction | The Court implicitly applied these principles to find that there was no error apparent on record, thereby dismissing the review petition. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the absence of any apparent error on the record. The court emphasized that the submissions made by the petitioner had already been considered in the earlier order dated 05.07.2021. The court’s reasoning suggests a focus on maintaining the finality of its decisions and not allowing review petitions to become a means of re-arguing settled matters. The court’s decision was driven by the principle that a review is not an appeal in disguise and should only be entertained if there is a clear error on the face of the record.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Absence of any apparent error on record | 80% |
| Submissions already considered in the earlier order | 20% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 0% |
| Law | 100% |
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Review petitions are not meant to be a substitute for appeals.
- ✓ The Supreme Court will only entertain review petitions if there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
- ✓ The finality of judicial decisions is an important principle that the court seeks to uphold.
- ✓ Submissions already considered in the original order will not be re-evaluated in a review petition.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There is no discussion of any specific amendments in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a review petition will not be entertained unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The judgment reinforces the established legal position that review jurisdiction is limited and is not a means to re-argue a case that has already been decided. There is no change in the previous position of law but it re-emphasizes the importance of finality in judicial decisions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed by Abhinitam Upadhyay, finding no error apparent on the record to justify interference with its earlier order. The judgment underscores the limited scope of review jurisdiction and the importance of finality in judicial decisions. The court’s decision highlights that review petitions are not a means to re-litigate settled issues unless a clear error is evident.