1. Reviewing Judgments: An Overview
At the outset, it may be stated that the power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 137 of the Constitution of India. Of course, that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by the Parliament or the Rules made under Article 145. Supreme Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 145 of the Constitution of India has framed the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The Order XLVII of Part IV thereof deals with the provisions of Review. Accordingly, in a Civil Proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in a Criminal Proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of record.
2. The Inclusivity of Review Remedy
However, it may be noted that neither Order XLVII CPC nor Order XLVII of Supreme Court Rules limits the remedy of review only to the parties to the judgment under review. Even a third party to the proceedings, if he considers himself to be an “aggrieved person,” may take recourse to the remedy of review petition. The quintessence is that the person should be aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by this Court in some respect.
i) Grounds for Review: A judgment can be subject to review if it can be demonstrated that there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
(ii) Finality of Judgments: In the normal course, judgments delivered by the Court are considered final, and any deviation from this principle is only warranted when compelling and substantial circumstances necessitate it.
(iii) Self-Evident Errors: Errors that can be reviewed should be self-evident and not require an intricate process of reasoning to discern. Review power is not meant for correcting errors that are not immediately apparent.
(iv) Limitations on Review: The jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC does not allow for a judgment to be reheard and corrected simply because it is erroneous. The review process has a more specific purpose.
(v) Limited Purpose of Review: A review petition has a constrained purpose and should not be allowed to serve as an avenue for an appeal in disguise. It is not a means to reargue matters that have already been addressed and decided.
(vi) Restriction on Reagitation: Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate and reargue the questions that have already been resolved by the Court. This power is not meant to enable endless legal disputes.
(vii) Error Apparent on the Face of Record: To warrant review, an error should be so evident that it becomes apparent by a mere examination of the record. It should not necessitate an extensive process of reasoning, especially in cases where different opinions may be conceivable.
(viii) No Review for Changes in Law: Even changes in the law or subsequent judgments by a co-ordinate or larger Bench are not, by themselves, sufficient grounds for review. The stability of legal decisions is an important aspect of this principle.
