CAN A CONSTITUTIONAL OR SUPREME COURT REVIEW ITS OWN JUDGMENTS?
The powers of the Supreme Court to review its own judgements may be expressly elaborated in a Constitution of a country. This of course has to be read with the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rule made under the supreme law of the land. In the absence of express provisions, the Court may still have implied powers.
To be sure, review is not rehearing of the appeal all over again. Reviewing of a judgment is done by the Supreme Court only when some serious injustice could be seen in the judgment after it has been passed. The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. However, the injustice should be really apparent and shouldn’t have contradictory opinions. The reason is in itself that if there could be two viewpoints in a case, the mistake is not that glaring or serious. Such a situation is not absolute or really obvious. So there wouldn’t naturally be a ground for “review”. The normal rule is that the judgment by the Supreme Court is final. A departure from the principle can be justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character makes it necessary to do so.
Review v Appeal: Scope of the Power
The power of review is distinct from the Court’s power to hear appeals, i.e. the appellate jurisdiction. When hearing a review petition filed against its own order or judgment, the Court does not rehear the case at hand, as it would in an appeal. The purpose of a review petition is limited to remedying an apparent error or the resultant grave injustice that has been the consequence of a decision of the Supreme Court. The Court is thus restricted in the exercise of the power of review to cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
In Northern India Caterers (India) v Lt. Governor Of Delhi (1979) wherein the Court held that “a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision in the case. Normally the principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. If the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing the Court will review its judgment. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice.”
The power to review its own decisions is not an inherent power of the Supreme Court, but a protective measure against the fallibility of the apex institution of the judiciary so as to ensure the delivery of justice. It must therefore be exercised in a limited manner.
Instances of Reviews in the Commonwealth Jurisdictions
In Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v The State of Maharashtra, a two Judge Bench decided to do away with the bar on grant of anticipatory bails in cases of atrocities and further laid down guidelines for the purpose of making arrests under the Act. In view of the resultant public outcry, the concerned parties approached the Supreme Court seeking review of its decision in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan. The review petition was heard and admitted by the Court and is currently pending.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has power to disapprove its own decisions where: too rigid adherence to precedent may lead to injustice in a particular case and also unduly restrict the proper development of the law (see 1 WLR 1234, 1966). The default rule, however, favours the status quo. The court will be “very circumspect” before accepting an invitation to review.
A case is only authority for what it actually decides: Lord Halsbury in LC Quinn v Leathem [1901] UKHL 2. A case is not authority for corollaries which may seem apparent or logical.
My personal note: the quality of debates on national matters in our nation is pathetically below par. Misinformation can cause unnecessary mayhem. It’s better not to comment when you are not an authority on national issues at hand. Giving examples on football teams in an attempt to explain or give opinions on serious matters of law shows the low calibre of leadership on both sides of the divide. There are more serious and urgent issues that we must be concentrating on now as a nation – electricity crisis, high cost of living, unemployment, etc. We cannot reduce the debate and the future of our nation to a few selfish individuals. Our nation needs authentic saviours to reclaim our lost glory.
Saviour Chishimba
UPP President