The leading authority is Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central GovernmentIndustrial Tribunal and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2355 of 1979, decided on 12 December 1980, where the Supreme Court drew this distinction in clear terms. The Court explained that Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji applies to review on merits, and therefore no such review lies unless the statute specifically provides for it.
Procedural review stands on a different footing. Where an order is passed due to procedural defect, misapprehension, absence of notice, or similar inadvertent error, the court or tribunal can correct it to do justice or to prevent abuse of its process. This power is treated as inherent because it is necessary to ensure fairness in adjudication, even where no express statutory power of review on merits exists.
The practical test is simple: if the complaint is that the process was defective, procedural review may lie; if the complaint is that the decision itself is legally wrong, it is review on merits and must be specifically authorized by statute.
For judicial and professional use, the correct proposition may be stated thus: procedural review is inherent; review on merits is statutory.
Procedural Review vs Review on Merits: The Real Distinction Explained for Judicial Service and Practice
The distinction between procedural review and review on merits is fundamental to understanding the law of review. As the Supreme Court clarified in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal (1980), the expression “review” is used in two distinct senses: first, a procedural review, which inheres in every court or tribunal to correct a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension; and second, a review on merits, where the error sought to be corrected is one of law apparent on the face of the record.
Why this distinction matters
This distinction is important because many lawyers and even litigants loosely use the word “review” without appreciating that the two jurisdictions rest on different foundations. A court may possess an inherent or implied power to correct its own procedural mistake, but it does not automatically possess the power to reconsider the merits of its judgment unless the governing statute expressly confers such power.
The rule in Grindlays Bank
In Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2355 of 1979, decided on 12 December 1980 by a Bench of Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J. and A.P. Sen, J., the Supreme Court authoritatively explained that “review” is used in two distinct senses. The Court held that procedural review is either inherent or implied in every court or tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension, whereas review on merits is invoked when the error is one of law apparent on the face of the record.
The Court further observed that Narshi Thakershi dealt with review in the second sense, namely review on merits, and therefore laid down that no review on merits lies unless the statute specifically provides for it. At the same time, where the review is sought because of a procedural defect, the tribunal must correct its own inadvertent error to prevent abuse of process, and such power inheres in every court or tribunal.
What is procedural review?
Procedural review is not really a re-hearing on the correctness of the judgment. It is the power to recall or set aside an order that came to be passed because of some procedural irregularity, patent misunderstanding, absence of notice, failure to hear a necessary party, or similar defect that strikes at the fairness of the decision-making process.
Thus, if an order is passed against a party without proper notice, or because the court proceeded on a mistaken assumption that the matter was uncontested, the court can revisit that order not because it is changing its mind on law or facts, but because the process itself was defective. That is why this power is described as inherent, implied, and exercisable in order to do the justice.
What is review on merits?
Review on merits is altogether different. Here, the court is invited to examine whether the decision itself suffers from an apparent legal error, such as an error apparent on the face of the record.
This kind of review is not inherent. It is a creature of statute. Therefore, unless the statute or procedural code expressly grants a power of review on merits, no court or tribunal can assume such jurisdiction merely because it made an error in law.
The continuing relevance of Narshi Thakershi
The principle stated in Narshi Thakershi remains good law in relation to review on merits. The Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank did not dilute that rule; rather, it clarified its proper field of operation.
In other words, Narshi Thakershi says that a tribunal has no power to review on merits unless the statute specifically confers it. Grindlays Bank adds that this restriction does not exclude the tribunal’s inherent power to correct a procedural mistake that has resulted in a palpably erroneous order.
The practical distinction
The difference may be stated simply:
Procedural review corrects a defect in the decision-making process.
Review on merits corrects an error in the decision itself.
Procedural review is inherent or implied.
Review on merits must be conferred by statute.
Procedural review is exercised to do the justice or to prevent abuse of process.
Review on merits is confined to the limits laid down in the relevant statute or rule.
Illustration
Suppose a tribunal dismisses a matter for default because it wrongly records that the party was absent, though in fact the party was present or had no notice of the date. Recalling that order would fall within procedural review.
But if a party argues that the tribunal misinterpreted a statutory provision and therefore reached the wrong conclusion on merits, that would amount to review on merits. Such a review would not lie unless the statute expressly permits it.
Correct legal position
The corrected legal position, therefore, is this: procedural review is inherent in every court or tribunal to correct a palpable procedural error or misapprehension, while substantive or merits review is not inherent and can be exercised only when specifically authorized by statute.
Hence, whenever the question of “review” arises, one must first ask: is the challenge directed against the process by which the order was passed, or against the legal correctness of the decision itself? The answer to that question determines whether the court is exercising inherent procedural power or statutory review jurisdiction.
Ready-to-use interview answer
“Review operates in two senses. First, procedural review, which is inherent in every court or tribunal to recall an order passed under procedural misapprehension or defect, to do the justice. Second, review on merits, which corrects an apparent error of law in the decision itself; this is not inherent and lies only when the statute specifically confers such power, as explained in Grindlays Bank and consistent with Narshi Thakershi.”
No comments:
Post a Comment