Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The State of Tamil Nadu has approached to the Supreme Court highlighting the difference between the benches that has given the judgement and the one which reviewed the petition. The judgement was rendered by Justice R. Sudhakar (headed the bench) and Justice S. Vaidyanath. In the following judgement, the writ petition filed by Mallikha was dismissed, the decision of the tribunal was upheld regarding the rejection of her claim to include her name in the select list of candidates for conferment of IPS. Then a review application was filed by Mallikha against the judgement. The bench to deal with the review petition consisted Justice K.K. Sasidharan and Justice M.V. Muralidharan. In the review petition the claims of the applicant was allowed.
The State of Tamil Nadu criticized the decision of review petition before the SC bench of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice S.K. Paul. The counsel appearing on behalf of the State highlighted that Justice S. Vaidyanath who is one of the judges who rendered the judgment, is still a sitting judge of the HC, but still he was not included in the bench of review. The counsel referred to the cases such as Malthesh Guddu Pooja v. State of Karnataka and ors. (2011) 15 SCC 330 and Vasanthakumar Vengadessane v. The Registrar General (2015) 5 MLJ 129. In both of the cases the apex court held that when the bench which rendered the judgement is absent, in that case only, another bench can review the case, as there is no alternative left.
The court said: “But when both the judges were present or atleast one of them is present, who rendered the judgement and continues to be the member or member of the court and available to perform the normal duties, all efforts should be made to place it before them and that requirement should not be routinely dispensed with.” Therefore the decision of the Madras HC was stayed by the SC.
86540
103860
630
114
59824