Kla Moot

THE ORDER OF THE HIGHCOURT OF GANGASTHAN IS IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION It has accordingly been held that a law which has the effect of retarding the assertion of vindication of the fundamental rights of the petitioner would be unconstitutional.1the court has further clarified that “there is no limitation in regards to the kind of proceedings envisaged in clause (1) of article 32 except that the proceedinga must be ‘appropriate’ and this requirement of appropriateness must be judged in the light of the purpose for which he proceeding is to be taken namely enforcement of a fundamental right.2 The word appropriate does not refer to any form but to the purpose of proceeding and therefore so long as the purpose of the proceeding is enforcement of a fundamental right, it is appropriate.3 It is not to say that an order can be made by this court which is inconsistent with the fundamental rihts guaranteed by the constitution in part III.4 It was emphasized that an order which this court could make in order to to do complete justice between the parties, must not only be consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed but it cannot even be inconsistent with the substantive provision of the relevant statutory laws.5 THE PETITIONER SHAM PATRICK HAS THE LOCUS STANDI TO APROACH THE SUPREME COURT In rectifying the error, no procedural inhibition should debar the supreme court because no [erson should suffer by reason of any mistake by the court. Here no rule of res judicata would apply to prevent the supreme court from entertaining the greviance and giving appropriate directions.6 The supreme court is not powerless tto correct its error which has the effect of depriving a person of his fundamental rights and more so, the right to life and liberty.7 It can also in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction in any proceedinga pending before it without insisting on the formalities of a review application.8 Powers of review can be exercised in a petition fi;ed under article 136 or article 32 or under any other provision of the constitution when the court is satisfied that its directions have resulted in the deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen.9 If a mistake is detected and the apex court is not able to correct it with a view of doing justice for fear of being misunderstood the cause of justice is bound to suffer and for the apex court the apprehension would not be a valid consideration .10 situations can do arise where supreme court may be to modify or recall an order , the court may have to exercise eits plenary and inherent powers to recall the earlier order without considering itself 1

Shukla , pg 278 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 802,( 813) (814) 3 ibid 4 AR Antula v. RS Nayak AIR 1988 SC 1531 5 ibid 6 ibid 7 ibid 8 ibid 9 ibid 10 ibid 2

bound by the nice technicalities of the procedure for getting these done.11 where a mistake is commited by a subordinate court or a high court, there are ample powers for the supreme court to remedy the situation.12

11 12

ibid ibid