Facts
Two police officers (an Assistant Commissioner and a Sub-Inspector) filed a review application seeking to review a judgment dated 21.11.2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 11248 of 2021.
Source reference: p. 1, 2The petitioners contended that during the original hearing, they had argued regarding the scope of Section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, but the Division Bench failed to record a finding on that specific point.
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the non-consideration of certain grounds or arguments raised by counsel constitutes an "error apparent on the face of the record" warranting exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3Law Applied
The court applied Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which limits review jurisdiction to the correction of mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record, rather than substituting a view or acting as an appeal in disguise.
Source reference: p. 2, 3The court relied on the precedent Malleeswari v. K.Suguna and another [2025 INSC 1080], which reiterated that review power is not an inherent right of appeal and is strictly confined to preventing a miscarriage of justice or correcting grave and palpable errors.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 3Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the mere failure to record every argument made by a counsel does not, per se, constitute a ground for review.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3It observed that while certain grounds are recorded and considered, others—unless they demonstrate a patent error—do not justify re-opening a final judgment.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3By citing Malleeswari, the Bench emphasized that a review court does not sit in appeal over its own order and that a re-hearing of the matter is impermissible.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 15.5Since the petitioners' grievance regarding the lack of a finding on Section 16 of the Human Rights Act was essentially a ground for appeal rather than a demonstration of a "grave and palpable error," the statutory requirements for review were not met.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4Holding
The Court held that the petitioners failed to establish an error apparent on the record warranting the exercise of review powers.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the review application with no costs.
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
THIRU M.VENKATESANvsTHE TAMILNADU STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in