In a significant ruling on the scope of review jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has held that a person who was not a party to the original proceedings can nevertheless maintain a review petition if the judgment directly prejudices or adversely affects his legal rights.
A Bench of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, while deciding the review proceedings in Union of India v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors., observed that the remedy of review is not confined exclusively to parties on record. The Court clarified that the decisive consideration is whether the applicant is an "aggrieved person" whose rights have been affected by the judgment sought to be reviewed.
Third Party Can Seek Review If Genuinely Aggrieved
The Court emphatically rejected the argument that only parties to the original litigation can invoke the review jurisdiction. It held that where a judgment adversely impacts the legal rights or interests of a person who was not impleaded in the proceedings, such person cannot be left remediless merely because he was not formally a party.
The Bench observed:
"Therefore, we have no hesitation in enunciating that even a third party to the proceedings, if he considers himself an aggrieved person, may take recourse to the remedy of review petition. The quintessence is that the person should be aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by this Court in some respect."
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from litigation concerning possession of property involving the National Textile Corporation (NTC). After the Supreme Court dismissed NTC's appeal, the Union of India, although not a party to the final proceedings before the Court, filed a review petition contending that the judgment had directly affected its statutory rights arising under the Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995. The Union asserted that the tenancy rights in the property had vested in the Central Government under the statute and, therefore, the judgment adversely impacted its legal interests.
The respondents objected to the maintainability of the review petition on the ground that the Union of India was not a party to the original appeal. The Supreme Court, however, proceeded to examine whether a non-party whose legal rights are affected can invoke the review jurisdiction.
Supreme Court's Reasoning
The Court observed that the expression "person aggrieved" must receive a purposive interpretation. It held that the maintainability of a review petition cannot be determined merely by examining whether the applicant was arrayed as a party in the original proceedings. Instead, the Court must consider whether the judgment prejudicially affects the applicant's rights or legal interests.
According to the Bench, if a person demonstrates that a judgment has caused legal prejudice or has the potential to adversely affect his rights, such person may seek review, notwithstanding the fact that he was not a litigating party in the original proceedings.
Significance of the Judgment
The ruling is an important clarification of the Supreme Court's review jurisdiction. It reinforces that procedural technicalities cannot override substantive justice where a judicial decision directly affects the rights of a person who was not before the Court.
The judgment also serves as an important precedent for cases involving statutory authorities, government bodies, stakeholders and other affected persons whose legal interests may be impacted by judgments delivered in proceedings to which they were not formally impleaded.
Key Takeaway
The Supreme Court has clarified that maintainability of a review petition depends on whether the applicant is an "aggrieved person" and not merely on whether he was a party to the original proceedings. A third party whose legal rights are adversely affected by a judgment may invoke the Court's review jurisdiction, provided genuine legal prejudice is demonstrated.
Case: Union of India v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors., Review Petition (C) D. No. 40966 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 7448 of 2011 — Judgment dated 28 November 2018.