Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently observed that when the individual facts of a particular case so warrant, there can be no bar in entertaining a clarification or modification petition in a disposed of case. As 'courts of record', it is essential for Constitutional courts to acknowledge and correct any errors that may have inadvertently entered their judicial orders when brought to their attention, it said.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Aravind Kumar, however, clarified that this would necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of that individual case.

Court modified its July 4, 2023 order, which had granted protection to Indiabulls and its officials without hearing the Enforcement Directorate, after finding that certain errors had occurred due to oversight.

Court 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, the bench said.

As pointed out by the top court in V K Jain Vs High Court of Delhi through Registrar General and others (2008), 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 bench added.   

It also emphasised that it is a settled principle that no adverse order should be passed against a party without hearing it. This is the fundamental principle of natural justice and it is a basic canon of jurisprudence, the bench emphasised.

The court allowed an application by the Enforcement Directorate for modification of July 4, 2023, which restrained coercive action against Indiabulls Housing Finance and its officials in connection with a case lodged by the central agency.

The application filed by the Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi, seeking recall of the order was premised on the sole ground that it was not given a hearing prior to its passing. 

In the case on hand, the Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi, was impleaded as a party respondent in the writ petition filed by Gangan Banga and others, by way of the final order disposing of the case.

The final order was passed without putting the ED on notice and affording it an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the directions of this court in the said order in relation to ECIR No.ECIR/HIU-1/06/2023 cannot be sustained, the bench said.

More so, as the final order only records that the interlocutory applications for impleadment and to bring on record additional facts were allowed and no more, the bench added.  

Court pointed out that in any event, the application for amendment of the prayers was not ordered.

In effect, FIR No. 197 of 2023 and ECIR No. ECIR/HIU-1/06/2023 were not even made the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition, it noted.  

Though this court relegated the writ petitioners to the jurisdictional high courts for challenging the FIRs registered against them, certain errors crept in by oversight while doing so, the bench said.   

"Once, no coercive steps were permitted in connection with the said FIR till the final disposal of the petition which was to be filed, the question of permitting the petitioners to again seek stay of proceedings in relation to the said FIR before the High Court was unnecessary," the bench added.

"When a party is relegated to the High Court to pursue its remedies, it would not be proper, in the normal course, to bind the said High Court with directions in relation to the proceedings to be impugned before such Court. Ordinarily, this Court would leave all issues open for the party so relegated to raise and pursue before the High Court," the bench said.

Referring to Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra and others (2021), the court noted that no compelling reasons were recorded by the top court in the order to justify deviation in the case on hand, which manifested that it was purely unintentional and due to sheer oversight.

That apart, such directions can be misconstrued by the high courts to be observations by the top court on the merits of the matter, thereby influencing the adjudication of the case, the bench said.

Accordingly, the bench said, "Thus, for reasons more than one, we are of the opinion that the order dated 04.07.2023 requires to be modified. The said order shall stand recalled insofar as it pertains to ECIRNo. ECIR/HIU-1/06/2023. It is left open to the High Court of Allahabad to consider the challenge thereto in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.10893 of 2023 on merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in the order dated 04.07.2023."

The bench directed that the said order would stand modified by substituting the words ‘till final disposal of the respective petitions...’ in paragraph 8 thereof with the words ‘till the filing of the respective petitions’. 

"This would mean that the High Courts in which proceedings have been instituted against the FIRs would be at liberty to entertain applications for interim relief in relation thereto and consider such applications and also the main cases on their own merit sand in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in the order dated 04.07.2023," the bench ordered.

Case Title: Gagan Banga and another Vs The State of West Bengal and others