Scope of Review Jurisdiction
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJAN — Appellant VS STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent
( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Hima Kohli and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. )
Review Petition (Crl.) Nos. 159-160 of 2013 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 300-301 of 2011
DATE OF DECISION 21-03-2023
B. Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 137 and 145 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (IPC) - Order 47 Rule 1 - Scope of Review Jurisdiction - Article 137 of the Constitution states that the Supreme Court has the power to review any judgment pronounced by it subject to provisions of law made by the Parliament or any rules under Article 145 - Supreme Court Rules 2013 have been framed under Article 145 of the Constitution - Order XLVII Rule 1 of the 2013 Rules provides that the Court may review its own judgment or order but no application for review will be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and in a criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record
C. Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 137 and 145 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (IPC) - Order 47 Rule 1 - Scope of Review Jurisdiction - Review is not rehearing of the appeal all over again and to maintain a review petition, it has to be shown that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
D. Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 137 and 145 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (IPC) - Order 47 Rule 1 - Scope of Review Jurisdiction - An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review.
E. Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 137 and 145 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (IPC) - Order 47 Rule 1 - Scope of Review Jurisdiction - An applicant cannot be allowed to reargue the appeal in an application for review on the grounds that were urged at the time of hearing of the appeal. Even if the applicant succeeds in establishing that there may be another view possible on the conviction or sentence of the accused that is not a sufficient ground for review - This Court shall exercise its jurisdiction to review only when a glaring omission or patent mistake has crept in the earlier decision due to judicial fallibility. There has to be an error apparent on the face of the record leading to miscarriage of justice.
....
Scope of Review Jurisdiction
15. Article 137 of the Constitution states that the Supreme Court has the power to review any judgment pronounced by it subject to provisions of law made by the Parliament or any rules under Article 145. The Supreme Court Rules 2013[3] have been framed under Article 145 of the Constitution. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the 2013 Rules provides that the Court may review its own judgment
[3] "2013 Rules"
16. or order but no application for review will be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and in a criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.
17. In Mofil Khan v State of Jharkhand, 2021 SCC OnLineSC 1136 a three judge Bench of this Court while discussing the scope of the power of review held that:
2. [...] Review is not rehearing of the appeal all over again and to maintain a review petition, it has to be shown that there has been a miscarriage of justice (See: Suthendraraja v. State). An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review (See: Kamlesh Verma v. Mayavati). An applicant cannot be allowed to reargue the appeal in an application for review on the grounds that were urged at the time of hearing of the appeal. Even if the applicant succeeds in establishing that there may be another view possible on the conviction or sentence of the accused that is not a sufficient ground for review. This Court shall exercise its jurisdiction to review only when a glaring omission or patent mistake has crept in the earlier decision due to judicial fallibility. There has to be an error apparent on the face of the record leading to miscarriage of justice.