Supreme Court of India
R. DAYANANDA SAGAR ETC. versus VATAL NAGARAJ ETC.
- Decided
- 23 April 1976
- Judges listed
- HANS RAJ KHANNA
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1976] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 121 · 1976 INSC 123
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
KRISHNA !YER, J. A judgment of the final Court of the land is final. A review of such a judgment is an exceptional phenomenon, permitted only where a grave and glaring error or other welt-established ground is made out. Unfortunately, the theoretical possibility, successful in a microscopic rarity of cases, has led to frequent, unfounded and indiscriminate petitions, almost as a routine sequel to a defeat in Court. The present review petitions fall under the latter category and fail by the fonner test and are therefore dismissed.
p. 121, margin F
Shri Asoke Sen made a limited submission on behalf of Dayananda Sagar in CMP 2095 of 1975 that certain observations in the judgment almost branding his client as an unindicted criminal-guilty of abetting forgery land purjury-were altogether unmerited and should be obliterated. While we cannot agree to this course, we admit that these strictures are in no way integral to the decision, although relevant if we take an overall view.
pp. 121–122, margin G
It is true that the words used are strong and we felt then tJ1at they were warranted. After hearing both sides we deem it meet to soften the judicial blow. Shri Sen submits that we were misled in reaching the inference drawn. Maybe, we were. Judge Learned Hand once said that the spirit of liberty is 'the spirit which is not too sure that it is right'. That great Judge was 'fond of recalling Cromwell's statement : 'I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken'.' He told a Senate Committee, 'I should like to have that written over the portals of every church, every school and every court-house, and may I say, of every legislative body in the United States. I sbould like to have every court begin. 'I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that we may be mistaken'. (Yale Law Journal: Vol. 71, 1961 November part).
p. 122, margin A
In a sense, it is this likelihood of error that persuaded Jesus Christ to caution : 'Judge not, that ye be not judged'. Our search for truth sometimes reaches a blind aBey expressed by Bacon : " 'what is truth?' said Jesting Pilato : and would not stay for an answer'."
p. 122, margin C
In this conspectus of great sayings, we are inclined to be humble. in spirit and free to tone down the harshness of the characterisation· to some extent. We would content ourselves by saying that the materials placed before us in appeal, read in the light of the conclusions of the High Court, may well lead to the inference and justify the observations made by us, although it may not be ruled out that a more innocent inference exculpating any role for the petitioner is possible .. Thus far, we modify the rigour, but decline to cancel, as pleaded by the petitioner. Wisdom cannot be confounded with obstinacy and a charita-ble construction of a situation cannot be excluded. That is whv we. liave consented to the dilution. · S.R. Petitions dismissed.
p. 122, margin D