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 Through Its Registrar General
[Judgment Date]: January 11, 2022
Date of the Judgment: January 11, 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 27
Judges: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Ajay Rastogi
Can a review petition be entertained if it does not point out any error apparent on record? The Supreme Court addressed this question while dismissing a review petition against its own previous order. This case highlights the principles governing review petitions and the importance of demonstrating a clear error in the original judgment. The bench comprised Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Case Background
The case involves a review petition filed by Abhinitam Upadhyay against an order passed by the Supreme Court. The petitioner sought a review of the order dated 05.07.2021. The core issue revolves around whether the review petition presents sufficient grounds to warrant a reconsideration of the original order. The petitioner’s application for oral hearing was dismissed.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 05.07.2021 | Original order passed by the Supreme Court which is the subject of the review petition. |
| January 11, 2022 | Supreme Court dismisses the review petition. |
Course of Proceedings
The Supreme Court noted that the submissions made by the petitioner were already considered in the order dated 05.07.2021. The review petition was filed against this order. The Court did not find any new grounds or errors that would justify a review of the original order.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily deals with the principles governing review petitions. The Supreme Court’s power to review its own judgments is limited and is generally exercised only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court did not cite any specific statute or provision but relied on the established principles of review jurisdiction.
Arguments
The petitioner’s arguments were not explicitly detailed in the judgment. However, it can be inferred that the petitioner attempted to reargue the points that were already considered in the original order dated 05.07.2021. The Supreme Court, however, did not find any merit in the arguments made by the petitioner.
| Submissions | Petitioner’s Arguments |
|---|---|
| Review of Previous Order | The petitioner attempted to reargue the points that were already considered in the original order dated 05.07.2021. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue was whether the review petition disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record that would warrant a review of the original order.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the review petition discloses any error apparent on the face of the record that would warrant a review of the original order? | The Court held that the review petition did not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record. The Court noted that the submissions advanced by the petitioner were already considered in the order dated 05.07.2021. Therefore, the review petition was dismissed. |
Authorities
The judgment did not explicitly cite any specific cases or legal provisions. The Court relied on the established principles of review jurisdiction, which dictate that a review is not an appeal in disguise and is only warranted when there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
| Authority | How the Authority was Considered |
|---|---|
| Established principles of review jurisdiction | The Court relied on these principles to conclude that a review is not an appeal in disguise and is only warranted when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. |
Judgment
| Submission | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Review of the order dated 05.07.2021 | The Court dismissed the review petition, stating that the submissions had already been considered in the original order and no error was apparent on the record. |
The Court did not cite any specific authorities in this judgment. The Court relied on the established principles of review jurisdiction.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court was primarily focused on whether there was any error apparent on the face of the record that would warrant a review of its previous order. The Court emphasized that a review petition is not an opportunity to reargue the case. The Court found that the petitioner had not presented any new grounds or errors that would justify a review. The Court’s decision was based on the principle that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record, and it is not an appeal in disguise. The Court’s reasoning was that the submissions advanced by the petitioners were already dealt with in the order dated 05.07.2021 and no new grounds were presented.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Adherence to established principles of review | 70% |
| Lack of new grounds for review | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court stated, “The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners were dealt with in the order dated 05.07.2021 against which the instant review petition is preferred.” The Court further stated, “The grounds raised in the review petition do not make out any error apparent on record to justify interference.” Finally, the Court concluded, “We, therefore, do not find any reason to entertain this review petition which is accordingly dismissed.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Review petitions are not a substitute for appeals.
- ✓ A review is warranted only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
- ✓ Re-arguing the same points already considered in the original order is not a valid ground for review.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The judgment reinforces the established principles of review jurisdiction. It reiterates that a review is not an appeal in disguise and is only warranted when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed by Abhinitam Upadhyay, affirming its previous order. The Court found no error apparent on the record that would justify a review. This case underscores the limited scope of review jurisdiction and the importance of demonstrating a clear error in the original judgment to warrant a review.