In a recently released judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled that Article 188 is concerned with the preceding Articles, 184 and 185, of the Constitution. This Article provides for review against the judgment of these two preceding Articles but not against itself. If the argument that a second review lies under Article 188 is accepted, it would open a gate for endless litigation. This will entail endless number of reviews against the same judgment as allowing second review will not stop there. It would mean that there lies number of reviews unless the parties stop filling review petitions.
The Court has held that this is something which the Constitution does not provide for neither the principles of law mandate such an interpretation of the Constitution which will allow endless litigation in a given case. The litigation must stop at a point.
The Court has further clarified that this practice cannot be allowed Suo Motu either. The Court by its own motion cannot take up a decided case under Article 188 saying that a principle of law has not been laid down correctly or there has been miscarriage of justice in the case. If a second review is not available, it is not available either through a petition by a party or Suo Motu by the Court under any name, be it a curative review or whatever. However, wrong view taken by the Court can be corrected many times in any other case in future which involves the same question of law.
c.m.appeal._47_2020
