SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(SC) 322

O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY, V.R.KRISHNA IYER
Avtar Singh Sekhon – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


Advocates:
KAPIL SIBAL, P.C.BHARTARI, R.K.GARG, R.S.SODHI

JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J. :—A simple petition to review an earlier judgment of this bench has, because of the intervening summer vacation, passed through vicissitudes, gathered episodes and been blown up into an exciting chronicle of unsavoury events, injecting more passion than reason, more heat than light, into the forensic proceedings. We kept completely clear of the unhappy imputations and confined counsel to the merits of the review proceeding before us. Justice discards party, friendship, and kindred and is therefore, represented as blind. This objectivity generated clarity and brevity, thanks, of course, to co-operation by counsel on both sides.

2. The facts are few although the fight is furious and the parties are army officers. It is a pity that careerism makes camaraderie a casualty in a profession where self-sacrifice for a higher cause is the dedication. Without moralising, we will state the grievance of the petitioner and examine whether our earlier order deserves reconsideration or reversal. Judges have a vested interest not in their judgment but in the justice of the cause and where the former is in error must unhesitatingly suffer surgery so that no curtail wrong is




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top