JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J. (with Murtaza Fazal Ali & D. A. Desai, JJ.): - Tersely expressed, this bunch of cases challenges the vires of a recent amendment made by the SC under Article 145 in the matter of review petitions whereby the judges will decide in circulation, without the aid of oral submissions whether there is merit in the motion and, in their discretion, choose to hear further arguments in Court.

2. Is orality in advocacy - that genius of Indo-Anglian Justice - an inalienable and ubiquitous presence in the court process, or does it ambit of abbreviated appearance and - more pertinent to the point here - discretionary eclipse, at least when it has been preceded by a sufficient oral session ? Secondly, is hearing on Bench in public, in contrast to considering the matter in conferential circulation, the only hall-mark of judicial justice, absent which the proceeding always violates the norms of equality implicit in Article 14, the limits of reasonableness bedrocked in Article 19, the procedural fairness rooted in Article 21? And, finally, by resort to operational secrecy, does rationing or burking of oral hearing travesty the values of our Justice System?

3. These basic prob