Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras HC, publicly criticized one of his own judgments and called for its reconsideration. Expressing a commitment to rectifying errors, the judge’s self-critique highlights a dedication to upholding judicial integrity and fairness.
Chennai: On 26th April: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court publicly criticized one of his own judgements during a lecture organized by the Madras Bar Association (MBA) Academy and Rakesh Law Foundation.
The judge, known for his commitment to upholding the law, acknowledged that the judgment in a civil suit required reconsideration, emphasizing the importance of learning from and rectifying mistakes.
READ ALSO: Madras HC junks plea agaisnt OPS expulsion
“Evolution happens when you know that you have committed a mistake and you are willing to correct it,” he said.
Justice Venkatesh, who was appointed to the High Court on June 4, 2018, shared an anecdote from his early days as a judge, when he had the privilege of working with Justice M.M. Sundresh.
“He reflected on a judgment delivered in the case of Harsha Estates versus P. Kalyana Chakravarthy on July 23, 2018, acknowledging that it was crafted in the fervor typical of a newly-appointed judge.
READ ALSO: Madras HC Warns of Dismissal: ‘Isha Foundation’ Missing Person Case
Justice Venkatesh recalled that senior advocate Sriram Panchu had argued for specific performance relief and a land suit in that case, admitting that he had initially held it against him. However, he now recognizes the validity of Panchu’s arguments and feels compelled to provide an explanation for his earlier stance.”
The judge explained that he had initially held the argument presented by senior advocate Sriram Panchu against the plaintiff, but he now realizes the need to reassess his decision. He acknowledged that Panchu’s position, concerning the relief of specific performance in relation to a suit for land, was correct. Justice Venkatesh admitted that he had erred in two principles established in the judgement.
The first principle, which stated that a suit for specific performance inherently encompassed the relief of possession of property, needed reevaluation. The second principle, regarding the inclusion of suits seeking additional relief, such as injunctions, also required reconsideration under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
“In his address, he emphasized the significance of an open attitude, highlighting that evolution involves not only learning but also unlearning. Stressing the collective nature of institutions, he underscored the importance of acknowledging and rectifying mistakes promptly, without personal bias. He concluded by emphasizing the essence of his lecture as recognizing and rectifying mistakes for progress.”
READ ALSO: SC Overturns Conflicting Madras HC Order in Property Case
The judge attributed his change of perspective to a scholarly article written by senior advocate R. Parthasarathy and discussions with advocate Sarath Chandran, whom he praised as a prominent member of the Madras Bar. He emphasized the importance of recognizing and rectifying mistakes, emphasizing that evolution and growth occur through unlearning as well as learning.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
