These writ petitions have come up before us as a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court referred the first mentioned writ petition to a Constitution Bench observing thus :

"Whether the judgment of this Court dated March 10, 1997 in Civil Appeal No.1843 of 1997 can be regarded as a nullity and whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution can be maintained to question the validity of a judgment of this Court after the petition for review of the said judgment has been dismissed are, in our opinion, questions which need to be considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court."


Court ruling:

The next step forward by the highest court to do justice was to review its judgment inter partie to correct injustice. So far as this Court is concerned, we have already pointed out above that it has been conferred the power to review its own judgments under Article 137 of the Constitution. The role of judiciary merely to interpret and declare the law was the concept of bygone age. It is no more open to debate as it is fairly settled that the courts can so mould and lay down the law formulating principles and guidelines as to adapt and adjust to the changing conditions of the society, the ultimate objective being to dispense justice. In the recent years there is a discernable shift in the approach of the final courts in favour of rendering justice on the facts presented before them, without abrogating but by-passing the principle of finality of the judgment.
                   xxx                  xxx                       xxxx
The concern of this Court for rendering justice in a cause is not less important than the principle of finality of its judgment. We are faced with competing principles - ensuring certainty and finality of a judgment of the Court of last resort and dispensing justice on reconsideration of a judgment on the ground that it is vitiated being in violation of the principle of natural justice or apprehension of bias due to a Judge who participated in decision making process not disclosing his links with a party to the case, or abuse of the process of the court. Such a judgment, far from ensuring finality, will always remain under the cloud of uncertainty. Almighty alone is the dispenser of absolute justice - a concept which is not disputed but by a few. We are of the view that though Judges of the highest Court do their best, subject of course to the limitation of human fallibility, yet situations may arise, in the rarest of the rare cases, which would require reconsideration of a final judgment to set right miscarriage of justice complained of. In such case it would not only be proper but also obligatory both legally and morally to rectify the error.

After giving our anxious consideration to the question we are persuaded to hold that the duty to do justice in these rarest of rare cases shall have to prevail over the policy of certainty of judgment as though it is essentially in public interest that a final judgment of the final court in the country should not be open to challenge yet there may be circumstances, as mentioned above, wherein declining to reconsider the judgment would be oppressive to judicial conscience and cause perpetuation of irremediable injustice.


https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123456797/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=14187541b4d564b17be57bf7c35a6ee7870bfcde-1608514710-0-AcJ-gxhxI7Wy0T7xx9KxFSZ5B-vchUhdZ6ZbiCCT06Egxpsy7KMU0RZiKxgwUJNtOC8GRc6uGTgmG1IZbPtlafjMsF8Z-bGl3ezmdm2DYJKrwfmLboWmjQLSQPRGNvBOE2zFtScUAza30UINT5LHhuSdkGBDaiibkcBeHOnbnGq8EyEWcDqkCWozXgBzD24mGzCRHrCD6-lvXZVeMlYQQnDNyvZUoXJGXvVgN4ABeyb6mkbU_av8vDbJTnV_xKgY7sGRvvLfxpfWzN_B7uN8feGVUEpV2uOaAE0Qu4IxKHHWmz6IEvlDxJCECKXQ6tFU3m0Kpx7cSdV7W-qzGBXaRNEW9WcgI2nOAxjpyuYFfRrgTCauCn610KcHjqUnh_PSdA