Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi disclosed today that the Supreme Court would review its judgment in the Sabarimala case on November 13 in the open court, and that it would be duly announced on the court’s website. The court has received 19 petitions seeking review of the judgment from parties claiming to be aggrieved by it.
According to the Supreme Court Rule 1, Part IV -Order XLVII, the Court may review its judgment or order, but no review will be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code, and in a criminal proceeding except on the grounds of an error apparent on the face of the record. The application for review, the rule says, shall be accompanied by a certificate of the Advocate on Record certifying that it is the first application for review and is based on the grounds admissible under the Rules.
The Sabarimala case is a civil proceeding, as the petitioners successfully challenged the constitutional validity of the rule followed by the temple authorities to deny permission to women of the menstruating age group, that is, between 10 and 50 years, to enter the temple. An application for review has to be filed within 30 days from the date of the judgment and must clearly set out the grounds for review.
The judgment in the Sabarimala case was delivered by a five-Judge Constitution Bench on September 28. Of the five Judges, the then CJI, Dipak Misra, who presided over the Bench, retired on October 2. In the case of non-availability of a judge or judges of the Bench, by reason of retirement or otherwise, an application for review shall be heard by a judge or bench of judges, as may be ordered by the Chief Justice.
Unless otherwise ordered by the court, an application for review shall be disposed of by circulation without any oral arguments, but the petitioner may supplement his petition by additional written arguments. The court may either dismiss the petition or direct notice to the opposite party.
An application for review, the rules say, shall as far as practicable be circulated to the same judge or bench of judges that delivered the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. This is because it is presumed that the judges who heard the matter and decided it must be more familiar with the arguments and, therefore, would be in a better position to decide whether the judgment needed to be reviewed in the light of the grounds cited in the petition. A mistake of fact or law can be a valid ground for the court to reverse or modify its decision in the case. Once an application for review of any judgment is heard and disposed of, no further application for review will be entertained in the same matter.
Significance of open-court hearing
The CJI’s disclosure that the court will hear the review petitions in the open court is significant. When judges hear a review petition by circulation, they usually dismiss it in a minute or so during the lunch hour by stating that they did not find any error apparent on the face of the record in the main judgment sought to be reviewed. In the open hearing, the judges hear the counsel for the various parties at length, on the errors as perceived by the various parties in the main judgment, and deliver a reasoned judgment.
In cases where the death sentence has been awarded to a convict, it is mandatory for a three-judge bench to hear review petitions in open court, but in other cases the judges use their discretion to hear them in open court, if required.
With CJI Dipak Misra demitting office the case will now be heard by the remaining four Judges, who delivered the main judgment. They are Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra. While Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Khanwilkar delivered a common judgment, others delivered separate judgments. Justice Indu Malhotra dissented from the other four Judges by refusing to quash the rule barring the entry of women in the 10 to 50 age group into the temple.
COMMents
SHARE