Supreme Court: ‘Even higher court judges are fallible, should be ready to rectify errors’

The ED had sought modification of the bid saying it barred probe till last disposal of the cases by the High Courts and said it was not heard earlier the disposal of the lawsuit with directions adverse to it.

“As pointed retired by the Supreme Court successful V.K. Jain v. High Court of Delhi done Registrar General and others, our ineligible strategy acknowledges the fallibility of Judges. Though this reflection was made successful the discourse of judges of the District Judiciary, it would beryllium arsenic applicable to those successful higher echelons of the judicial hierarchy. As courts of record, it is indispensable that law courts admit errors that whitethorn person crept into their judicial orders and rectify the aforesaid erstwhile called upon to bash so,” the tribunal said connected September 23.

The seat referred to Rajendra Prasad Arya v. State of Bihar lawsuit to authorities that the tribunal ever has the powerfulness to rectify immoderate mistake it had committed. “Being the tribunal of past resort, this tribunal would not shy distant from acknowledging immoderate mistakes successful its orders and would beryllium acceptable to acceptable close specified wrongs,” the seat said.

The seat agreed that “the last bid was passed without putting it (ED) connected announcement and affording it an accidental of hearing.”

The tribunal said that though “in a state governed by the Rule of Law, finality of judgments is perfectly imperative and large sanctity is attached to specified finality…However, erstwhile the idiosyncratic facts of a peculiar lawsuit truthful warrant, determination tin beryllium nary barroom to entertaining a clarification/modification petition successful a disposed of case”. It added that this would needfully beryllium connected the facts and circumstances of that idiosyncratic case.

The ruling pointed retired that “Rule 6 of Order LV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, states that thing successful the said rules shall beryllium deemed to bounds oregon different impact the inherent powers of the tribunal to marque specified orders arsenic whitethorn beryllium indispensable for the ends of justness oregon to forestall maltreatment of the process of the court. Therefore, if immoderate specified maltreatment of process is noticed aft the disposal of the lawsuit oregon if a modification is recovered indispensable to conscionable the ends of justice, this Court would beryllium justified successful entertaining an exertion successful a disposed of lawsuit and exercising specified power”.

It said that “…when the idiosyncratic facts of a peculiar lawsuit truthful warrant, determination tin beryllium nary barroom to entertaining a clarification/modification petition successful a disposed of case. This would needfully beryllium connected the facts and circumstances of that idiosyncratic case. Notably, Rule 6 of Order LV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, states that thing successful the said Rules shall beryllium deemed to bounds oregon different impact the inherent powers of the Court to marque specified orders arsenic whitethorn beryllium indispensable for the ends of justness oregon to forestall maltreatment of the process of the Court”.

The tribunal hence held that if immoderate maltreatment of process is noticed aft the disposal of the lawsuit oregon if a modification of the bid is required to conscionable the ends of justice, “this tribunal would beryllium justified successful entertaining an exertion successful a disposed of lawsuit and exercising specified power.”