Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
R. DAYANANDA SAGAR ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
VATAL NAGARAJ ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT23/04/1976
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
KHANNA, HANS RAJ
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
CITATION:
1976 AIR 2183 1976 SCR 121
1976 SCC (2) 932
ACT:
Review of judgment of Supreme Court should not be a
routine sequel of a defeat in Court-Constitution of India,
Art. 137 and order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 read
with order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure code
HEADNOTE:
The petitioner filed a review petition on the ground
that certain observations in the judgment amounted to almost
branding him as an unindicted criminal-guilty of abetting
forgery and perjury and they should be obliterated.
Dismissing the petitions and modifying the rigour of
the observations the Court held:
^
(1) A judgment of the final Court of the land is final.
review of such a judgment is an exceptional phenomenon
permitted only when a grave and glaring error or other well-
established ground is made out. Unfounded and indiscriminate
petitions almost as a routine sequel to defeat in court
should be avoided despite the theoretical possibility of
success [121 G]
Obiter Wisdom cannot be confounded with obstinacy and a
charitable construction of a situation. cannot be excluded.
[122 E]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Review Petition Nos. 43
and 44 of 1975.
Application for review of this Hon’ble Court’s Judgment
dated 11th October 1974 in the matter of Civil Appeal No.
1738 of 1973.
A. K. Sen, M. Veerappa and Altaf Ahmed for the
Petitioners in Review Petition No. 43 of 1975.
Y. S. Desai and R. B. Datar for the Petitioners in
Review Petition No. 44 of 1975.
The order of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J. A judgment of the final Court of the
land is final. A review of such a judgment is an exceptional
phenomenon, permitted only where a grave and glarind error
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
or other well-established ground is made out. Unfortunately,
the theoretical possibility, successful in a microscopic
rarity, of cases, has led to frequent, unfounded and
indiscriminate petitions, almost as a routine sequel to a
defeat in Court. The present review petitions fall under the
latter category and fail by the former test and are
therefore dismissed.
Shri Asoke Sen made a limited submission on behalf of
Dayananda Sagar in CMP 2095 of 1975 that certain
observations in the ’Judgment almost branding his client as
an unindicted criminal-guilty of abetting forgery’ and
purjury-were altogether unmerited and should be obliterated.
While we cannot agree to this course, we admit that these
122
strictures are in no way integral to the decision, although
relevant if we take an overall view.
It is true that the words used are strong and we felt
then that they were warranted. After hearing both sides we
deem it meet to soften the judicial blow. Shri Sen submits
that we were misled in reaching the inference drawn. Maybe,
we were. Judge Learned Hand once said that the spirit of
liberty is ’the spirit which is not too sure that it is
right’. that great Judge was ’fond of recalling Cromwell’s
statement: ’I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that
ye may be mistaken’.’ He told a Senate Committee, ’I should
like to have that written over the portals of every church,
every school and every court-house, and may I say, of every
legislative body in the United States. 1 should like to have
every court begin. ’I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ
think that we may be mistaken’. (Yale Law Journal: Vol. 71,
1961 November part).
In a sense, it is this likelihood of error that
persuaded Jesus Christ to caution: ’Judge not, that ye be
not judged’. Our search for truth sometimes reaches a blind
alley expressed by Bacon: "’what is truth? said Jesting
Pilato: and would not stay for an answer’."
In this conspectus of great sayings, we are inclined to
be humble in spirit and free to tone down the harshness of
the characterisation to some extent. We would content
ourselves by saying that the materials placed before us in
appeal, read in the light of the conclusionls of the High
Court, may well lead to the inference and justify the
observations made by US, although it may not be ruled out
that a more innocent inference exculpating any role for the
petitioner is possible. Thus far, we modify the rigour, but
decline to cancel, as pleaded by the petitioner. Wisdom
cannot be confounded with obstinacy and a charitable
construction of a situation cannot be excluded. That is why
we have consented to the dilution.
S.R. Petitions dismissed
123