8/11/2019 Subroto Case

1/1

SUBROTA ROY SAHARA CASERelying on the above provisions, learned senior Counsel asserted, that "maintainability exists, becausewe can all make mistakes, and the mistakes that we make, need to be corrected". The submission ofthe learned Counsel in this behalf was, that in the above view of the matter, jurisdiction could truly be

traced, to Articles 129 and 142 for correcting mistakes. It was the submission of the learned Counsel,that this Court being a Court of record, had unlimited jurisdiction to correct all mistakes committed byit.

Referring to Article 142 of the Constitution of India it was submitted, that it was the pious obligation ofCourt to do complete justice, and accordingly, whenever injustice was traceable, it was imperative forthis Court to rectify the same.

On the subject under reference, learned senior Counsel relied on the decision in Rupa Ashok Hurra'scase (supra) and invited our pointed attention to following observations recorded therein:23. These contentions pose the question, whether an order passed by this Court can becorrected under its inherent powers after dismissal of the review petition on the ground that it waspassed either without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice or due to unfairprocedure giving scope for bias which resulted in abuse of the process of the Court or miscarriage ofjustice to an aggrieved person.

The upshot of the discussion in our view is that this Court, to prevent abuse of its process and to curea gross miscarriage of justice, may re-consider its judgments in exercise of its inherent power.

The instant petition has been styled as a criminal writ petition.

Moreover, our deliberations on the merits of the controversy further reveals, that there is neither anyjurisdictional error, nor any error in law has been shown to be made out.

CONCLUSION:

Disobedience of orders of a Court strikes at the very root of the rule of law, on which the judicialsystem rests. Judicial orders are bound to be obeyed at all costs. Howsoever grave the effect may be,is no answer for non-compliance of a judicial order. Judicial orders cannot be permitted to becircumvented. In exercise of contempt jurisdiction, Courts have the power to enforce compliance ofjudicial orders, and also, the power to punish for contempt.

The law laid down by this Court in Jaswant Singh v. Virender Singh and Ors.

MANU/SC/0107/1995 : 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 384, has been found to be fully applicable to thefacts of this case, particularly the mannerism and demeanour exhibited by the Petitioner andsome of the learned Counsel. Our recusal from the case sought on the ground of bias, has

been found to be devoid of any merit. Each and every insinuation levelled by the Petitionerand his learned senior Counsel, during the course of hearing, has been considered andrejected on merits.

The submission advanced by Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior Counsel asserting themaintainability of the instant petition under the maxim of ex debito justitiae, expresslyrecognized by this Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak MANU/SC/0002/1988 : (1988) 2 SCC602, is held to be devoid of any merit, consequent upon a detailed analysis of the judgmentrelied upon. The contention advanced by Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior Counsel for thePetitioner, projecting the maintainability of the instant petition under Article 32 read withArticle 21 of the Constitution of India, has been found to be unacceptable in law on the basis

of a series of judgments rendered by this Court. The submission advanced by Dr. RajeevDhawan, learned senior Counsel representing the Petitioner, supporting the maintainability of

the instant petition by placing collective reliance on Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitutionof India, has also been found to be ill-founded. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find nomerit in the present petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed.