Date of the Judgment: January 11, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 40
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can a review petition be entertained if it does not point out any error apparent on the record? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while dismissing a review petition against its earlier order. This case involves a review petition filed by Abhinitam Upadhyay against an order concerning the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, who unanimously dismissed the review petition.
Case Background
The case originates from a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 849 of 2021, which was previously decided by the Supreme Court. Following that decision, the petitioner, Abhinitam Upadhyay, filed a Review Petition (Civil) No. 1353 of 2021 seeking a review of the earlier order. The respondent in both the Special Leave Petition and the Review Petition is the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court through its Registrar General. The petitioner sought a review of the order passed by the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 5, 2021 | Supreme Court issued the order against which the review petition was filed. |
| 2021 | Abhinitam Upadhyay filed Review Petition (Civil) No. 1353 of 2021. |
| January 11, 2022 | Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petition (Civil) No. 1353 of 2021. |
Course of Proceedings
The Supreme Court had previously addressed the submissions made by the petitioners in its order dated July 5, 2021. The current review petition was filed to seek a reconsideration of that order.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily revolves around the principles governing the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The court considered whether there was any error apparent on the record that would justify a review of its earlier order.
Arguments
The petitioner sought an oral hearing, which was dismissed by the Court. The petitioner argued that the previous order should be reviewed.
The respondent, the Allahabad High Court, did not make any submissions as the review petition was against an order of the Supreme Court itself.
| Petitioner’s Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Review of the order dated 05.07.2021 |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame any issues, as it was dealing with a review petition. However, the implicit issue was whether there was any error apparent on the record that would justify a review of its earlier order.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether there was any error apparent on the record to justify a review of the order dated 05.07.2021 | The Court held that the grounds raised in the review petition did not make out any error apparent on the record and hence dismissed the review petition. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any authorities in this order. The decision was based on the principles governing review jurisdiction.
| Authority | How Considered by the Court |
|---|---|
| Principles governing review jurisdiction | Applied to determine if there was an error apparent on record. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Oral hearing sought | Dismissed. |
| Review of the order dated 05.07.2021 | Dismissed, as no error apparent on record was found. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Principles governing review jurisdiction | Applied to determine if there was an error apparent on record. |
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 of the previous order. The court emphasized that a review petition is not an appeal in disguise and can only be entertained if there is a clear error that needs to be rectified. The focus was on ensuring that the review jurisdiction is not used to re-argue a case that has already been decided.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Absence of Error | 80% |
| Adherence to Review Jurisdiction Principles | 20% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 0% |
| Law | 100% |
The court’s reasoning was straightforward: the review petition did not present any new grounds that would indicate an error in the original order. The court stated, “The grounds raised in the review petition do not make out any error apparent on record to justify interference.” This indicates that the court was satisfied that the previous order was correct and did not require any review. Another quote from the judgment, “We, therefore, do not find any reason to entertain this review petition which is accordingly dismissed,” reinforces the court’s decision to uphold its previous ruling.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ A review petition will not be entertained unless there is an error apparent on the record.
- ✓ The review jurisdiction is not an opportunity to re-argue a case.
- ✓ The Supreme Court will not interfere with its previous orders unless there is a clear justification.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this order.
Specific Amendments Analysis
No specific amendments were analyzed in this judgment.
Development of Law
The judgment reinforces the established principle that a review petition is not an appeal in disguise and can only be entertained if there is an error apparent on the record. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed by Abhinitam Upadhyay, upholding its previous order. The court found no error apparent on the record to justify a review, emphasizing the limited scope of review jurisdiction.
FAQ
Q: What is a review petition?
A: A review petition is a request to a court to re-examine its own decision. It is not an appeal, but rather a process to correct any apparent errors in the original judgment.
Q: When can a review petition be filed?
A: A review petition can be filed when there is an error apparent on the record of the original judgment. This means that the error must be clear and obvious from the judgment itself.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed by Abhinitam Upadhyay, finding no error apparent on the record of its previous order.
Q: Does this mean the Supreme Court can never review its own orders?
A: No, the Supreme Court can review its own orders if there is an error apparent on the record. However, the court will not review its orders simply because a party disagrees with the decision.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment reinforces the principle that a review petition is not an appeal and can only be entertained if there is a clear error in the original judgment. It highlights the limited scope of review jurisdiction.