When the Supreme Court recalls its judgment in a review petition, it has significant implications for the legal system. This action essentially renders the recalled judgment as "Non est," meaning it no longer exists unless specific provisions are made in the recall order to preserve certain aspects of it. Here's a breakdown of the effects of such a recall:
Once a judgment is recalled, any legal principles or ratios established by it lose their binding authority. This means that courts and parties can no longer rely on or cite these principles as legal precedents in future cases. The recalled judgment is effectively invalidated, and its influence on subsequent legal decisions is nullified.
A notable example of this is the "Common Cause" judgments, which provided directions for disposing of old criminal matters. These judgments were recalled in the "Rajdeo Sharma case." As a result, the Common Cause judgments can no longer be followed or relied upon as legal precedents. This demonstrates how the recall of a judgment can significantly alter the legal landscape by removing previously established guidelines.
The recall of a judgment by the Supreme Court highlights the dynamic nature of the legal system. It shows that even established legal precedents are not immutable and can be revisited if deemed necessary. This flexibility allows the judiciary to adapt to changing societal norms, legal interpretations, and constitutional understandings.
Conclusion
In summary, when the Supreme Court recalls its judgment, it essentially erases that judgment from the legal record, unless specific exceptions are noted. This action removes the judgment's authority as a precedent, ensuring that it cannot be cited or relied upon in future legal proceedings. This process underscores the evolving nature of legal precedents and the judiciary's role in shaping the legal framework.
No comments:
Post a Comment