http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 19

PETITIONER:

P. N. ESWARA IYER

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/02/1980

BENCH:

KRISHNAIYER, V.R.

BENCH:

KRISHNAIYER, V.R.

FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA

DESAI, D.A.

PATHAK, R.S.

KOSHAL, A.D.

CITATION:

1980 AIR 808 1980 SCR (2) 889

1980 SCC (4) 680

CITATOR INFO :

R 1983 SC1125 (8)

F 1989 SC1298 (9)

RF 1990 SC 538 (4)

ACT:

Supreme Court Rules 1966-O.XL, rules 2 and 3 Scope of-

Disposal of review petitions by circulation without oral

arguments-If violative of Art. 14.

HEADNOTE:

Order XL, rule 2(1) of the Supreme Court Rules (as

amended) provides that an application for review shall be by

a petition and shall be filed within thirty days from the

date of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. It

shall set out clearly the grounds for review. Sub-rule (3)

provides that "unless otherwise ordered by the Court an

application for review shall be disposed of by circulation

without any oral arguments but the petitioner may supplement

his petition by additional written arguments".

In a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the

petitioners contended that scuttling of oral presentation

and open hearing is subversive of the basic creed that

public justice shall be rendered from the public seat and

that secrecy and circulation are negation of judicial

justice.

Dismissing the petitions,

^

HELD: per Krishna Iyer, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and Desai,

JJ (Pathak and Koshal JJ concurring).

Unchecked review has never been the rule. A review

petition must be supported by proper grounds because

otherwise every disappointed litigant may avenge his defeat

by a routine review petition. [895D]

The original rule required a certificate by the

advocate to the effect that the petition was review-worthy.

If it was so certified then a preliminary oral hearing

followed. After such oral argument the court issued notice

to the other side or dismissed the petition. But as it

turned out, laxity in certification and promiscuity in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 19

filing review applications crowded the court with unwanted

review petitions and the very solemnity of finality would be

frustrated if such a game were to become popular. [895E-H]

The amended rule is designed to remove the evil of

reckless reviews by the introduction of preliminary judicial

screening in circulation replacing counsel’s certification.

If the review petition and written submissions convinced the

court prima facie that material error had marred the justice

or legality of the earlier judgment or order, the case would

be posted for oral hearing in court. Now ’certworthiness’ is

shifted from counsel to court. [896H]

Circulation in the judicial context merely means not in

court through oral arguments but by discussion at judicial

conference. Judges, even under the amended rule, must meet,

collectively cerebrate and reach conclusions. In a review

petition the same judges who have once heard oral arguments

and are familiar with

890

the case direct a hearing in court if they find good

grounds. It is not as if all oral advocacy is altogether

shut out. Where oral presentation is not that essential its

exclusion is not obnoxious. What is crucial is the guarantee

of the application of an impartial and open mind to the

points presented. If without much injury a certain class of

cases can be disposed of without oral hearing, there is no

good reason for not making such an experiment. If on a close

perusal of the paper book the judges find that there is no

merit or statable case, there is no special virtue in

sanctifying the dismissal by an oral ritual. [898E, 899E,

900C]

The rule on its face affords a wider set of grounds for

review for orders i