The Supreme Court of India acknowledged that judges can make mistakes and emphasized the importance of correcting errors in past orders, even after a case is closed. This recognition arose while revisiting a previous decision involving Indiabulls Housing Finance, where the court had granted protection and stayed debt recovery and money laundering proceedings against the company and its officials.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India acknowledged that judges, like any other individuals, are prone to errors. The court stressed that it should not hesitate to accept and correct mistakes in its orders, even after a case has been closed. This recognition came as the apex court revisited a decision it had passed over a year ago involving Indiabulls Housing Finance and its officials.
In an interim order, the Supreme Court had granted protection to Indiabulls Housing Finance and its officials, while also staying debt recovery and money laundering proceedings against them.
However, upon a recent review, the court admitted that-
“certain errors crept in its order by oversight,”
which required immediate rectification.
The significant error that the court admitted to was the issuance of a restraint order against the Enforcement Directorate (ED) without providing the agency a chance to be heard. The ED later approached the court seeking a modification of the original order. The oversight prompted the Supreme Court to revisit its earlier decision.
The original order, passed by Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sanjay Kumar, contained another flaw: it instructed the parties to approach the High Court to raise their grievances. Yet, it also granted interim protection that would continue during the pendency of the case in the High Court, which was inconsistent with the usual course of judicial proceedings.
Typically, when the Supreme Court grants interim protection, it remains in place only until the parties have approached the High Court. Thereafter, it is up to the High Court to decide whether to continue the interim protection. In this case, the apex court acknowledged the inconsistency in its original order, where it provided interim protection while simultaneously directing the parties to the High Court.
On Tuesday(24th Sept), a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Aravind Kumar recognized these dual errors. They modified the original order, clarifying that the interim protection in the recovery proceedings would only last until the parties approached the High Court. After that point, the High Court would be responsible for deciding the fate of the interim order.
“The stay of proceedings granted by this court concerning the first three FIRs will remain in effect until the writ petitions filed before the High Courts are resolved.”
-the bench remarked, further elaborating that it would not be appropriate to bind the High Court with directions concerning proceedings that were yet to be impugned before it.
“When a party is referred to the High Court to seek remedies, it is generally inappropriate to impose binding directions on that court regarding the proceedings being challenged. Typically, this court will allow all issues to remain open for the party to raise and address before the High Court.”
-the bench added.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Assures Support to Dalit Youth Who Lost IIT Dhanbad Seat Over Rs 17,500 Fee
What makes this decision particularly notable is the Supreme Court’s open admission of its errors and its willingness to rectify them.
As the bench pointed out-
“As the court of last resort, this court will not hesitate to recognize any errors in its orders and is prepared to rectify such mistakes.”
This statement emphasizes the critical role the Supreme Court plays in upholding justice, including rectifying any oversights in its previous orders. By doing so, the court ensures that the legal process remains fair and balanced.
The bench also allowed the Enforcement Directorate’s plea to withdraw the portion of the previous order related to the money laundering case. This part of the order had been passed on July 4 of the previous year, and its withdrawal marked a key step in correcting the court’s original decision.
In its decision, the bench referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in the V K Jain vs. Delhi High Court case. The ruling highlighted the inherent fallibility of judges within the legal system. The bench noted-
“Our legal system recognizes that judges are fallible. While this observation was initially made in reference to district court judges, it applies equally to those at higher levels of the judiciary.”
This observation underscores the fact that even the most senior judges are not immune to errors, and it is the responsibility of the courts to correct them when they arise. As the bench explained-
“As courts of record, it is essential for constitutional courts to acknowledge any errors that may have slipped into their judicial orders and correct them when required.”
This acknowledgment of judicial fallibility is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the justice system. By recognizing and correcting errors, the courts reaffirm their commitment to delivering fair and just rulings.
It is important to note that Justice Krishna Murari, who was part of the original bench that passed the interim order, has since retired. His superannuation came during the period between the original decision and the court’s subsequent review of the case. Despite this, the Supreme Court, under the new bench, moved forward with modifying and correcting the order.
