Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petitions in Goa Mining Case: Vedanta Ltd. vs. Goa Foundation (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: July 9, 2021
Citation: Not Available (INSC format)
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and M.R. Shah, J.
Can a review petition be dismissed on the grounds of delay alone? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while reviewing its earlier judgment on mining leases in Goa. The court dismissed the review petitions filed by Vedanta Limited and the State of Goa, citing significant delays and a lack of merit. The bench comprised of Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case involves a review of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Goa Foundation vs Sesa Sterlite Limited & Ors., pronounced on February 7, 2018. The review petitions were filed by the State of Goa and Vedanta Limited, challenging the earlier decision. The original case concerned the legality and environmental impact of mining leases in Goa. The review petitions were filed with a significant delay of 20 to 26 months.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The review petitions were filed with a delay of 650-651 days by the State of Goa and 907 days by Vedanta Limited. The Supreme Court noted that the review petitions were filed after the retirement of the judges who delivered the original judgment. The Court expressed strong disapproval of this practice, emphasizing the need to preserve the institutional sanctity of the Court’s decision-making process. The Court decided to dismiss the review petitions both on the grounds of limitation and on merits.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Rule 2 of Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which mandates that a review petition must be filed within thirty days of the date of the judgment or order that is sought to be reviewed. The Court noted that no valid reasons were provided for the significant delays in filing the review petitions.

Rule 2 of Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013: “An application for review of a judgement has to be filed within thirty days of the date of the judgement or order that is sought to be reviewed.”

Arguments

The review petitioners, the State of Goa and Vedanta Limited, sought a review of the judgment in Goa Foundation II. However, the Supreme Court did not delve into the specific arguments made by the petitioners regarding the merits of the case. Instead, the Court focused on the procedural aspect of the delay in filing the review petitions. The Court noted that the State of Goa filed its review petitions after the retirement of Justice Madan B Lokur, and Vedanta Limited filed its petitions after the retirement of Justice Deepak Gupta. The Court found no valid reasons for the delay of 20 to 26 months in filing the review petitions. The Court did not specify the arguments on the merits of the case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues for consideration in the review petitions. However, the primary issue that the Court addressed was whether the review petitions should be entertained, given the significant delay in their filing. The Court also considered whether there were any legitimate grounds for reviewing the original judgment on merits, even if the delay was condoned.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

Authorities:

The Court considered Rule 2 of Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013* to highlight the stipulated time limit for filing review petitions. The Court also considered the original judgment in Goa Foundation vs Sesa Sterlite Limited & Ors., which was the subject of the review petitions. The Court used the rule to justify the dismissal of the review petitions on the ground of limitation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the significant delay in filing the review petitions and the lack of valid reasons for the delay. The Court also emphasized the importance of preserving the institutional sanctity of the decision-making process of the Court. The Court strongly disapproved of the practice of filing review petitions after the retirement of the judges who delivered the original judgment. The Court’s reasoning focused on the procedural aspects of the case rather than the merits of the original judgment.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principle of limitation and the importance of adhering to procedural rules. The Court did not consider any factual aspects of the original case in its decision to dismiss the review petitions.

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the clear violation of the time limit for filing review petitions. The final decision was to dismiss the review petitions on both the grounds of limitation and merit.

“The review petitions have been preferred by the State of Goa… and by Vedanta Limited… against the judgement of a two-judge bench of this Court… pronounced on 7 February 2018.”

“In accordance with Rule 2 of Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, an application for review of a judgement has to be filed within thirty days of the date of the judgement or order that is sought to be reviewed.”

“Keeping in mind the above, we are inclined to dismiss these review petitions on the ground of limitation alone. However, in any event, we also find that no legitimate grounds for review of the judgment in Goa Foundation II have been made out, and dismiss these review petitions on merits as well.”

Key Takeaways

• Review petitions must be filed within thirty days of the judgment as per the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
• Significant delays in filing review petitions without valid reasons can lead to dismissal.
• The Supreme Court disapproves of the practice of filing review petitions after the retirement of the judges who delivered the original judgment.
• The institutional sanctity of the Court’s decision-making process must be preserved.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment analyzed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that review petitions must be filed within the stipulated time period as per the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and significant delays without valid reasons will lead to dismissal. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules and maintaining the institutional integrity of the Court. There was no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment emphasizes the importance of the existing rules.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions filed by the State of Goa and Vedanta Limited against its earlier judgment in Goa Foundation vs Sesa Sterlite Limited & Ors.. The dismissal was based on the significant delays in filing the review petitions and the lack of any legitimate grounds for review on merits. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules and preserving the institutional sanctity of the Court’s decision-making process.