You are on page 1of 2


1. Sumer v. State: It was expected in Rupa Ashok Hurra that curative petitions will
be filed only in exceptional and rarest of rare cases. However, it has been
otherwise. Certifacte of the Senior Advocate has to meet the requirements
mentioned in Rupa Ashok Hurra.
2. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra: To prevent gross miscarriage of justice, the
Court may reconsider its judgments in exercise of its inherent power.
Neither advisable nor possible to enumerate all the grounds on which such petition
may be entertained. But Petitioner is entitled to relief ex debitio justiciae if (i) he
was not party to the lis but the outcome affects his interests or he was not served
with notice and the matter proceeded as if he had been served (ii) A judge failed to
disclose his connection with the subject matter or the parties giving scope for an
apprehension of bias and the judgment adversely affects the petitioner.
Shall mention that the grounds were taken in review and it was dismissed by

Has to be first circulated to a bench of three seniormost judges and the judges who
passed the judgment complained of, if available. Only when majority of the judges
on such bench agree that the matter needs hearing, it should be listed before the
same bench which may pass appropriate orders.
3. Maj. Gen. Shrikant Sharma v. Union of India: Judicial Review under Articles
32 and 226 is part of the basic structure of the constitution. While Article 32 is
fundamental right, no fundamental right under Article 226 may be claimed.

Section 30 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 provides for Appeal to the
Supreme Court from the order of the Tribunal.
Though jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be circumscribed, when a special
statutory forum is created and an efficacious alternative remedy is available, the
High Courts will not entertain petitions under Article 226.

4. Mohammed Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India: Death penalty cases are
a separate category. Though the rule of no oral hearing in P.N.Eswara Iyer , though
binding precedent, is not applicable to Death Penalty cases. The necessity of oral
hearing in death penalty review petitions is an integral part of the reasonable
procedure. Limited hearing of 30 minutes.

5. Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra: Section 19 of TADA Act provided for appeal to

the Supreme Court from the order of TADA Designated Court. Such a provision is
6. Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India: The rule of law is the foundation of a
democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of rule of law. If the judiciary is to
perform its functions effectively and remain true to the spirit to with which they
are sacredly entrusted, the dignity of the courts have to be respected and protected
at all costs (Originally stated in Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Ashok Khot.)

Contempt of court may be from an active or passive act.

12 of the 1971 Act refers to punishment of contempt of court. Section 15 refers to

cognizance. Wilful disobedience Civil Contempt.

7. Director of Settlements v. M.R.Apparao and Anr.: Obiter dictum has to be

distinguished from the ratio decidendi. Statement of Court on other than law such
as facts has no binding effect. Depends on the questions that arose for

8. Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra v. State of Maharashtra: A Bench of lesser

quorum cannot doubt the correctness of the view of the law taken by a Bench of
larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to
invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for
hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose decision has come
up for consideration. It will be open only for a Bench of co- equal strength to
express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench
of co- equal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a
Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision
laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted.

9. Supreme Court Employee Welfare Association v. Union of India: Dismissal of

the SLP by a non-speaking order is no reflection on the merits of the matter.
Decision on abstract question of law or on jurisdiction do not operate as res

10. Suganthi v. Jagadeesan: High Court cannot overrule the Supreme Court on the
ground that a particular ground or a provision of law was not considered by the
Supreme Court.