No Review of A Judgment, If Appeal Already Decided

1. Introduction

Recently, hon’ble Supreme Court in Gangadhara Palo Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer & Another {(2011) 4 SCC 602; Decided on 08.03.2011} has held that there can be no review of a judgment, if appeal has already been decided. The Court observed the principles as follows.

2. It will make no difference whether the review petition was filed in the   High   Court   before or   after   the   dismissal   of  the SLP by SC

The Court observed as follows (SCC p. 603 para 5)

“5. We regret, we cannot agree.  In our opinion, it will make no difference whether the review petition was filed in the   High   Court   before   the   dismissal   of  the   special   leave petition   or   after   the   dismissal   of   the   special   leave petition.     The  important   question   really   is   whether   the judgment of the High Court has merged into the judgment of this Court by the doctrine of merger or not.”

3. Doctrine of Merger: After   merger   there   is   no judgment of the High Court

The Court further observed as follows (SCC p. 604 para 6 & 7)

“6. When   this   Court   dismisses   a   special   leave   petition by giving some reasons, however meagre (it can be even of just one sentence), there will be a merger of the judgment of   the  High   Court   into   the   order   of   the   Supreme   Court dismissing   the   special   leave  petition.  According   to   the doctrine of merger, the judgment of the lower court merges into the   judgment   of   the   higher   court.  Hence,   if   some reasons,   however meagre,   are given   by   this   Court   while dismissing the special leave petition, then by the doctrine of merger, the judgment of the High Court merges into the judgment of this   Court   and   after  merger   there   is   no judgment of the High Court. Hence, obviously, there can be no review of a judgment which does not even exist.”

“7. The   situation   is   totally   different   where   a   special leave   petition   is   dismissed  without   giving   any   reasons whatsoever.   It   is   well   settled   that   special   leave   under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary remedy, and hence a special leave petition can be dismissed for a variety of reasons and not necessarily on merits.  We cannot   say   what  was   in   the   mind   of   the   Court   while dismissing   the   special   leave   petition   without  giving   any reasons.  Hence, when a special leave petition is dismissed without   giving   any  reasons,   there   is   no   merger   of   the judgment   of   the   High   Court   with   the   order  of   this   Court. Hence, the judgment of the High Court can be reviewed since it   continues   to  exist,   though   the   scope   of   the   review petition is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record. If, on the other hand, a special leave petition is dismissed  with   reasons,  however  meagre  (it   can  be   even  of just   one   sentence),   there   is   a   merger   of   the  judgment   of the High Court in the order of the Supreme Court.  (See the decisions of this Court in the cases of Kunhay Ammed & Others   vs.   State   of Kerala   &   Another   (2000)   6   SCC  359;  S. Shanmugavel   Nadar   vs. State   of   Tamil   Nadu   &   Another   JT  2002   (7)   SCC  568;   State   of   Manipur vs.   Thingujam   Brojen  Meetei   AIR   1996   SC   2124;   and   U.P. State  Road Transport Corporation   vs. Omaditya Verma  and others AIR 2005 SC  2250).

4. A mere stray observation of Supreme Court would not amount to a precedent

The Court further observed as follows (SCC p. 605 para 11)

“11. A   precedent   is   a   decision   which   lays   down   some principle   of  law. In   our   view,  the   observations   made   in para 4 of the aforesaid judgment, quoted above, that “if a review petition is filed after the dismissal of the special leave   petition,   it   would   be   treated   as  an   affront   to   the order of the Supreme Court”  is not a precedent at all.  A mere stray observation of this Court, in our opinion, would not amount to a precedent. The above observation of this Court is, in our opinion, a mere stray observation and hence not a precedent.”

5. By a judicial order, the power of review cannot be taken away

 The Court further observed as follows (SCC p. 605 para 12)

“12. By a judicial order, the power of review cannot be taken away as that has been conferred by the statute or the Constitution.  This   Court   by judicial   orders   cannot   amend the statute or the Constitution.”(END)