"Our Legal System Acknowledges Fallibility Of Judges": Supreme Court Says It Can Entertain Clarification Or Modification Petitions In Disposed Cases If Necessary
The Supreme Court observed that when the individual facts of a particular case so warrant, there can be no bar to entertaining a clarification/modification petition in a disposed-of case.
The Court observed thus while disposing a miscellaneous petition in a Writ Petition.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Aravind Kumar observed, “…when the individual facts of a particular case so warrant, there can be no bar to entertaining a clarification/modification petition in a disposed of case. This would necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of that individual case.”
The Petition challenged FIRs registered in three states in which the Supreme Court stayed proceedings. The Petitioners sought to include new respondents, Yamuna Industrial Development Authority and the Enforcement Directorate. The Court allowed the requests and directed the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional High Courts for further challenges while maintaining interim protection until a final decision. The Applications seek modification of the Court's order.
The Court observed, “Rule 6 of Order LV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, states that nothing in the said Rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, if any such abuse of process is noticed after the disposal of the case or if a modification is found essential to meet the ends of justice, this Court would be justified in entertaining an application in a disposed of case and exercising such power.”
The Court further said, “As pointed out by this Court in V.K. Jain v. High Court of Delhi through Registrar General , our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of Judges. Though this observation was made in the context of Judges of the District Judiciary, it would be equally applicable to those in higher echelons of the judicial hierarchy..As Courts of record, it is necessary that Constitutional Courts recognize errors that may have crept into their judicial orders and rectify the same when called upon to do so.”
The Court mentioned the decision in Rajendra Prasad Arya v. State of Bihar, where according to the Court it was observed, “…there can be no dispute with the proposition that the Court always has the power to rectify any mistake committed by it. “
The Court said that being the Court of last resort, it would not shy away from acknowledging any mistakes in its orders and would be ready to set right such wrongs.
Accordingly, the Court modified the order.
Finally, the Court disposed of the Miscellaneous Applications and the Interlocutory Applications.
Cause Title: Gagan Banga v. State of West Bengal (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 722)
