RESPONDENT: THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DATE OF JUDGMENT01/02/1980 KRISHNAIYER, V.R. KRISHNAIYER, V.R. FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA DESAI, D.A. PATHAK, R.S. KOSHAL, A.D. CITATION: 1980 AIR 808 1980 SCR (2) 889 1980 SCC (4) 680 CITATOR INFO : R 1983 SC1125 (8) F 1989 SC1298 (9) RF 1990 SC 538 (4) ACT: Supreme Court Rules 1966O.XL, rules 2 and 3 Scope of Disposal of review petitions by circulation without oral argumentsIf violative of Art. 14. HEADNOTE: Order XL, rule 2(1) of the Supreme Court Rules (as amended) provides that an application for review shall be by a petition and shall be filed within thirty days from the date of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. It shall set out clearly the grounds for review. Subrule (3) provides that "unless otherwise ordered by the Court an application for review shall be disposed of by circulation without any oral arguments but the petitioner may supplement his petition by additional written arguments". In a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioners contended that scuttling of oral presentation and open hearing is subversive of the basic creed that public justice shall be rendered from the public seat and that secrecy and circulation are negation of judicial justice. Dismissing the petitions, ^ HELD: per Krishna Iyer, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and Desai, JJ (Pathak and Koshal JJ concurring). Unchecked review has never been the rule. A review petition must be supported by proper grounds because otherwise every disappointed litigant may avenge his defeat by a routine review petition. [895D] The original rule required a certificate by the advocate to the effect that the petition was reviewworthy. If it was so certified then a preliminary oral hearing followed. After such oral argument the court issued notice to the other side or dismissed the petition. But as it turned out, laxity in certification and promiscuity in filing review applications crowded the court with unwanted review petitions and the very solemnity of finality would be frustrated if such a game were to become popular. [895EH] The amended rule is designed to remove the evil of reckless reviews by the introduction of preliminary judicial screening in circulation replacing counsel's certification. If the review petition and written submissions convinced the court prima facie that material error had marred the justice or legality of the earlier judgment or order, the case would be posted for oral hearing in court. Now 'certworthiness' is shifted from counsel to court. [896H] Circulation in the judicial context merely means not in court through oral arguments but by discussion at judicial conference. Judges, even under the amended rule, must meet, collectively cerebrate and reach conclusions. In a review petition the same judges who have once heard oral arguments and are familiar with 890 the case direct a hearing in court if they find good grounds. It is not as if all oral advocacy is altogether shut out. Where oral presentation is not that essential its exclusion is not obnoxious. What is crucial is the guarantee of the application of an impartial and open mind to the points presented. If without much injury a certain class of cases can be disposed of without oral hearing, there is no good reason for not making such an experiment. If on a close perusal of the paper book the judges find that there is no merit or statable case, there is no special virtue in sanctifying the dismissal by an oral ritual. [898E, 899E, 900C] The rule on its face affords a wider set of grounds for review for orders in civil proceedings but limits the grounds vis a vis criminal proceedings to errors apparent on the face of the record. Here "record" means any material which is already on record or may with the permission of the court be brought on record. [909C] The substantive power is derived from Article 137 and is as wide for criminal as for civil proceedings. Even the difference in phraseology in the rule (r.2) must be read to encompass the same area and not to engraft the artificial divergence productive of anomaly. If the expression "record" is read to mean any material even later brought on record, with the leave of the court, it will embrace subsequent events, new light and other grounds which are found in O. 47, r. 1, C.P.C. [909GH] Sow