Latest News
Back
Pending Decision On Relevance Of Antulay Case In The Decision Of Tamil Nadu Defecation Case
The case of AR Antulay v RS Nayak, quoted by Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi to advance his contention on the defection case, was a landmark judgment in favour of the argument that an applicant can claim legal remedy as a matter of right which the court cannot refuse. The proposition is inherent in the maxim, ex debito justitiae. The other maxim which the judgment relied on was actus curiae neminem gravabit which sums up to the conclusion that neither party before the court is prejudiced by some accidental or unavoidable action or omission of the court. To save the judgment, Lord Atkin was quoted, “Finality is a good thing, but justice is better”, since this Supreme Court decision was to reverse its own ruling. Since then, this judgment is being repeatedly cited as a mechanism to persuade the court to either reverse its earlier ruling, or to prevent the Court from doing away with an accused’s legal remedies in order to expedite the hearing of a case which, however, has not been favoured considering that Antulay case is one of its kind.
During the hearing of the challenges to non-disqualification of 11 MLAs led by the Deputy Chief Minister, O. Pannerselvam in Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice A K Sikri, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, Senior Counsel for 11 MLAs, Mukul Rohatgi, referred to the Antulay Case advancing his contention that the 11 MLAs are entitled to a hearing before the speaker of the Tamil Nadu assembly. The bench has, however, not revealed its mind on relevance of Antulay case on this matter.
