The Supreme Court has reprimanded the heck for repeatedly filing miscellaneous applications to “modify” or “clarify” its decisions.
The court observed that there is no legal basis for such conduct of some litigants. This should be strongly discouraged. Such conspiracies reduce litigation.
Over the years, private parties, along with “resources”, corporates and even the government, have repeatedly returned to the Supreme Court, following decisions to ‘clarify’ or ‘modify’ the verdict. The move has pulled the brakes on the implementation of the verdict and, worse, continues to drag the case to court for years after the verdict.
The court considers this to be a deliberate move to avoid compliance with the judgment.
disturbing trend
“The hallmark of a judicial pronouncement is its consistency and finality. Judicial decisions are not like sand dunes which are subject to the uncertainties of wind and weather,” a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna said in a recent order.
The court repeatedly observed the emergence of a “troubling trend” in filing applications, “styled as miscellaneous applications”, following the announcement of the final decision.
“Applications are becoming a preferred course of action for those with the resources to pursue strategies to avoid compliance with judicial decisions. By filing a miscellaneous application, a judicial declaration cannot be amended once a decision has been made.” Filing of miscellaneous application seeking amendment/clarification in a judgment is not envisaged in law. Further, it is an established legal principle that one cannot indirectly do what one cannot do directly,” the court said. said.
abuse of process
The court referred to its earlier judgments which had termed these “miscellaneous applications” as an attempt to review the entire judgment under the guise of “clarification”.
“It is an application which is basically seeking review of the judgment. By disguising the application as one for ‘clarification’, to avoid the process that governs review petitions, it seeks to be heard in open court. which, as per the rules of this Court, is to be disposed of in the chambers. Such attempt on the part of the applicant should be rejected,” the court had said.
The court held that by merely describing as an application for ‘clarification’ or ‘amendment’, although it is actually one of review, a party cannot be allowed to circumvent or bypass the circulation process. and can indirectly obtain hearings in open court. .
“In a country governed by the rule of law, the finality of the judgment is absolutely imperative, and with the finality of the judgment great sanctity is attached. Granting permission is clearly an abuse of the process of law and will have far-reaching adverse effects on the administration of justice.
.