Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a review petition filed by Lala Ram against the Supreme Court of India and others, challenging the constitutional validity of Order XL Rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, which required a cash security of Rs. 2,000 as a precondition for entertaining a review petition in civil proceedings. The petitioner had previously filed a special leave petition against a judgment of the Punjab High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal. The Supreme Court granted special leave on January 14, 1964, but later rescinded it on April 2, 1965, because the petitioner failed to file the list of documents, and the special leave petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 85 of 1966 under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging that the revocation of special leave and dismissal of the special leave petition deprived him of his right to appeal and violated Article 14. That writ petition was dismissed on March 24, 1966. The petitioner then filed a review petition against that dismissal, but the office report pointed out that the review petition was defective because no security for costs had been furnished as required by Order XL Rule 2(2). The petitioner contended that the rule was void as infringing Articles 14 and 32, relying on the decision in Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P., Allahabad, where a similar rule for original writ petitions was struck down. The Court considered the constitutional validity of the rule and the distinction between an original application for enforcement of a fundamental right and a review petition. The Court held that the main purpose of a review petition is not to enforce a fundamental right but to reopen an order vitiated by an error on the face of the record or for similar reasons. Therefore, a precondition of cash security for review petitions does not infringe Article 32, even though such a condition might be invalid for original Article 32 applications. The Court also rejected the Article 14 challenge, holding that the classification is reasonable because review petitions seek to reopen matters that have already been heard and disposed of, providing a rational nexus to the objects of deterring frivolous applications and safeguarding the interests of respondents. The Court noted that the rule is within the Supreme Court's power under Article 145, and the fact that it may be prejudicial in some cases does not invalidate it. However, exercising its discretionary power under Order XLVII Rule 1, the Court reduced the cash security from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 250, to be paid within two weeks. The final decision upheld the constitutional validity of the rule and granted partial relief to the petitioner by reducing the security amount.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Article 32 - Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Order XL Rule 2(2) - The Supreme Court held that a review petition is not an application to enforce a fundamental right, so a precondition of cash security for review does not infringe Article 32. The Court distinguished Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, explaining that while onerous conditions for original Article 32 applications may be invalid, the same does not apply to review petitions. Held that the rule is constitutionally valid. (Paras 16-17) B) Constitutional Law - Equality - Article 14 - Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Order XL Rule 2(2) - The rule does not create unjustified discrimination because review petitions seek to reopen matters already disposed of after hearing, providing reasonable nexus to the objects of deterring frivolous applications and protecting respondents. Held that the classification is reasonable. (Para 17) C) Constitutional Law - Rule-Making Power - Article 145 - Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Order XL Rule 2(2) - The Court held that the rule is within the power of the Supreme Court under Article 145, and the fact that it may be prejudicial in certain circumstances does not invalidate it. Held that the rule is validly made. (Para 17) D) Supreme Court Practice - Review Petitions - Security for Costs - Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Order XL Rule 2(2) and Order XLVII Rule 1 - The Court has inherent power to excuse compliance and reduce security; here, the cash security was reduced from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 250. Held that the discretionary power was exercised in favor of the petitioner. (Paras 17-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Order XL Rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, requiring deposit of Rs. 2,000 cash security as a precondition for filing a review petition, violates Article 32 and Article 14 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Order XL Rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, holding that the requirement of cash security of Rs. 2,000 as a precondition for filing a review petition does not infringe Article 32 or Article 14. However, in exercise of its discretionary power, the Court reduced the amount of cash security from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 250, to be paid within two weeks.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- A review petition is not an application to enforce a fundamental right under Article 32
- a precondition of cash security for review petitions does not infringe Article 32
- Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on the distinction that review petitions seek to reopen closed matters
- the Supreme Court has power under Article 145 to make such rules
- Order XLVII Rule 1 provides residuary discretion to relax requirements.
