FINALITY WHEN DISTURBED

In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
Reported in (2011)8SCC161, [2011]9SCR146, the Honble SC has held as under

219. We reiterate that the finality of the judgment of the Apex Court has
great sanctity and unless there are extremely compelling or exceptional
circumstances,

the

judgments

of

the

Apex

Court

should

not

be disturbed particularly in a case where review and curative petitions have

already been dismissed.
220. This Court has consistently taken the view that the judgments delivered
by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution cannot be reopened in a writ petition filed under Article 32 of
the Constitution. In view of this legal position, how can a final judgment of
this Court be reopened by merely filing interlocutory applications where all
possible legal remedies have been fully exhausted? When we revert to the
facts of this case, it becomes abundantly clear that this Court delivered final
judgment in this case way back in 1996. The said judgment has not been
permitted to acquire finality because the Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 had filed
multiple interlocutory applications and has ensured non-compliance of the
judgment of this Court.
221. On consideration of pleadings and relevant judgments of the various
courts, following irresistible conclusion emerge:
i) The judgment of the Apex Court has great sanctity and unless there are
extremely

compelling,

overriding

and

exceptional

circumstances,

the

judgment of the Apex Court should not be disturbed particularly in a case

where review and curative petitions have already been dismissed
ii) The exception to this general rule is where in the proceedings the
concerned judge failed to disclose the connection with the subject matter or
the parties giving scope of an apprehension of bias and the judgment
adversely affected the Petitioner.
iii) The other exception to the rule is the circumstances incorporated in the
review or curative petition are such that they must inevitably shake public

confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice if the judgment or

order is allowed to stand.
222. These categories are illustrative and not exhaustive but only in such
extremely exceptional circumstances the order can be recalled in order to
avoid irremedial injustice.