People Wait For A Judge To Retire To File Review Petition: SC Observes While Dismissing Plea Seeking Permission For Oral Mentioning Of A Review Petition
The Supreme Court while dealing with a Writ Petition seeking directions to the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court to allow oral mentioning of a pending Review Petition commented on the prevailing trend of filing Review Petitions after the retiring of the Judge who had passed the judgment or order sought to be reviewed.
The Writ Petition that was listed before the bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution impugning the decision of the Secretary-General of the Court, who had refused permission for the oral mentioning of a Review Petition, citing Order XL Rule (3) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
Appearing for the Petitioners, Senior Advocate Gopal Shankarnarayan submitted, "I shouldn't be pressing this as an Article 32 petition. It's only a small matter. If instructions can administratively go to the Registrar that we can mention Review Petitions before your Lordships." Shankarnarayan further stated, "Eventually whatever your lordships do.... but if they could be mentioned."
However, refusing to entertain the Petition, the CJI remarked, "There is a roll call of Review Petitions. I also have Review Petitions of colleagues who have retired, so we all distribute them to different Becnhes. Even I take up some...". Continuing, the CJI remarked, "Particularly after a Judge retires... you don't know the number of Review Petitions which come up. People wait for a retirement and then send us the Review Petition."
The CJI also commented, "You will be surprised by the number of Curative Petitions which are now being filed... 90% of them are Review Petitions. They lift grounds in the SLP and come to us in Review. However, we have to still look at these things very carefully because something genuine might just slip out..we have to look at everything carefully."
Senior Advocate V Chitambaresh appeared for two individuals seeking to intervene in the Writ Petition to support the Petitioners. The two intervenors were the Thanthri of the renowned Shri Padmanabha Swamy Temple of Kerala and the Mathadhipati of Shri Shirur Matha located in Udupi, Karnataka.
It may be noted that as per the Supreme Court Rules, a Review Petition should be filed within 30 days of the pronouncement of the Judgement or Order.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the Writ Petition. The Court ordered, "We are not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed."
In the Writ Petition, a direction was sought to allow an oral mention of a pending review petition, which was aimed at safeguarding the rights of Shri Chilkur Balaji Venkateshwara Swamy Deity. Petitioners sought to preserve the sanctity of the Deity's religious swayambhu character of incarnation, which includes the collective right of devotees to worship and demonstrate their deep-seated beliefs and faith in the Deity's religious swayambhu character. It was submitted that this sacred duty of worship is not only a form of devotion but also a means to appease and honour the Deity.
It was also contended in the Writ Petition that previously, the Supreme Court had passed an order which shows that an oral mentioning was allowed by the Court in a Review Petition bearing R.P. (C) No.1043 of 2022. "This right of oral advocacy through oral mention in open court prior to listing of Review Petition that has been followed in practice, which has been arbitrarily denied giving effect to violation of Articles 14, 19, 21, 25, 26 and 29(1) of Deity and Devotee rights by the Respondent herein and it is also in violation of Article 39A of the Constitution of India", stated the Petition.
Cause Title: Shri Chilkur Balaji Venkateshwara Swamy (Deity) & Anr. v. Versus The Registrar, Supreme Court Of India [Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1146/2023]
Click here to read/download the Order