Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2017 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 1088 - SC - Indian LawsInterpretation and effect of paragraph 10 of the impugned order which provides that any request for stay or impeding the progress in the investigation or the trial of the coal block allocation cases can be made only to this Court and no other Court shall entertain any such request. Held that: - While considering the interpretation of the expression ‘a fundamental error in procedure which has occasioned a failure of justice’ the International Court of Justice expressed the view that to constitute a failure of justice an error in procedure is fundamental when it is of the kind where the fundamental right of a staff member to present his case, either orally or in writing is denied. The International Court then proceeded to identify certain elements of the right to hearing well recognized as for instance the right to an independent and impartial tribunal established by law; the right to have the case heard and determined within a reasonable time; the right to a reasonable opportunity to present the case to the tribunal and to comment upon the opponent case; the right to equality in the proceedings vis-ŕ-vis the opponent; and the right to a reasoned decision. An allegation of ‘failure of justice’ is a very strong allegation and use of an equally strong expression and cannot be equated with a miscarriage of justice or a violation of law or an irregularity in procedure – it is much more. If the expression is to be understood as in common parlance, the result would be that seldom would a trial reach a conclusion since an irregularity could take place at any stage, inadmissible evidence could be erroneously admitted, an adjournment wrongly declined etc. To conclude, therefore, Section 19(3)(c) of the PC Act must be given a very restricted interpretation and we cannot accept the over-broad interpretation canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants. The issue having already been agitated before this Court and negatived, we do not think it appropriate to revisit the order of 25th July, 2014 passed by this Court nor do we think it appropriate to modify that order.
|