Supreme Court: ‘Even higher court judges are fallible, should be ready to rectify errors’

The ED had sought modification of the order saying it barred investigation till final disposal of the cases by the High Courts and said it was not heard before the disposal of the case with directions adverse to it.

“As pointed out by the Supreme Court in V.K. Jain v. High Court of Delhi through Registrar General and others, our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of Judges. Though this observation was made in the context of judges of the District Judiciary, it would be equally applicable to those in higher echelons of the judicial hierarchy. As courts of record, it is necessary that constitutional courts recognize errors that may have crept into their judicial orders and rectify the same when called upon to do so,” the court said on September 23.

The bench referred to Rajendra Prasad Arya v. State of Bihar case to state that the court always has the power to rectify any mistake it had committed. “Being the court of last resort, this court would not shy away from acknowledging any mistakes in its orders and would be ready to set right such wrongs,” the bench said.

The bench agreed that “the final order was passed without putting it (ED) on notice and affording it an opportunity of hearing.”

The court said that though “in a country governed by the Rule of Law, finality of judgments is absolutely imperative and great sanctity is attached to such finality…However, when the individual facts of a particular case so warrant, there can be no bar to entertaining a clarification/modification petition in a disposed of case”. It added that this would necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of that individual case.

The ruling pointed out that “Rule 6 of Order LV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, states that nothing in the said rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Therefore, if any such abuse of process is noticed after the disposal of the case or if a modification is found essential to meet the ends of justice, this Court would be justified in entertaining an application in a disposed of case and exercising such power”.

It said that “…when the individual facts of a particular case so warrant, there can be no bar to entertaining a clarification/modification petition in a disposed of case. This would necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of that individual case. Notably, Rule 6 of Order LV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, states that nothing in the said Rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court”.

The court hence held that if any abuse of process is noticed after the disposal of the case or if a modification of the order is required to meet the ends of justice, “this court would be justified in entertaining an application in a disposed of case and exercising such power.”