The power to review one`s own decisions is not a power inherent in the Supreme Court, but a measure of protection against the fallibility of the supreme institution of the judiciary to ensure the administration of justice. It must therefore be exercised to a limited extent. The court dismissed the appeal and stressed a point about the need to approach the court “with clean hands”, that is, without deception. The decision explicitly states that if a litigant does not appear honestly in court, he should be sent to the door as soon as possible. Article 137 of the Indian Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to review its judgments or orders. However, this power is subject to the rules adopted by the Supreme Court under article 145 and to the provisions of all laws promulgated by Parliament. In addition, according to the 2013 Supreme Court Rules (XLVII.2), an application for review must be filed within 30 days of the judgment or order for review and submitted to the same chamber that rendered the decision. Before counsel for the applicant leaves the podium after the first presentation, he or she may set aside some time for the rebuttal after the respondent`s counsel`s presentation. It is the applicant – not the court – who is responsible for keeping an eye on the time remaining for the rebuttal. In typical program simulations, more than one student lawyer pleads on each side.

In this case, they must inform the student commissioner before the trial begins of how they want to divide their time. Usually, the first student lawyer who speaks also deals with the rebuttal. The immediate motion was filed against this decision, which allows for the request for reconsideration, and the complainant(s) challenged the validity of the above-mentioned decision. The Supreme Court issued a decision on March 20, 2018, which caused widespread consternation among members of the SC/ST community. In subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, a 2-judge panel composed of Judges AK Goel and UU Lalit JJ decided to abolish the prohibition on granting early bail in atrocity cases under the Prevention of Atrocities Act SC/ST of 1989 and also established guidelines for arrests under the law. In light of the resulting public outcry, the Centre appealed to the Supreme Court for a review of its decision in the Subhash Kashinath Mahajan case. The application for review has been heard and admitted by the court and is currently pending, although the provisional application for suspension of the directives issued in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan has been rejected.

The Supreme Court`s complex role in this system stems from its power to strike down laws or executive measures that, according to the Court`s decision, are unconstitutional. This power of “judicial review” has conferred on the Court a crucial responsibility in safeguarding the rights of the individual and in maintaining a “living constitution” whose full provisions are constantly applied to new complex situations. Although the General Court dismissed the appeal, it also made relevant remarks on the need to approach the Court of Justice “with clean hands” without deception. If a party to the proceedings does not appear honestly in court, the door must be shown to him as soon as possible, the judgment vehemently states. The Supreme Court is “resolutely American in concept and function,” as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes noted. Few other courts in the world have the same power to interpret the Constitution, and none has exercised it for so long or with so much influence. A century and a half ago, French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville emphasized the unique place of the Supreme Court in the history of nations and jurisprudence. “The representative system of government has been adopted in several european states,” he noted, “but I am not aware that any nation in the world has so far organized a judicial power in the same way as the Americans. A larger judiciary has never been constituted by any people. When each judge has finished speaking, the Chief Justice votes for the first time, and then each judge does the same in descending order of seniority until the youngest judge votes for the last time.

Once the votes have been counted, the Chief Justice or the most senior judge of the majority, if the Chief Justice disagrees, appoints a majority judge to write the court`s opinion. The most senior dissenting judge may request a dissenting judge to draft the dissenting opinion. A ministerial bench composed of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Shaji P Chaly faced an appeal against a request for review. “It is obvious that these constitutional courts, as registered courts, have the power to recall their own orders due to the fact that they are superior courts,” the single judge noted when he granted the request for review, citing Shivdeo Singh and other decisions. “This has been recognized in many of our decisions. The application was filed by the applicant in accordance with Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. On the basis of the evidence provided by the applicant, I believe that he did not come to court with clean hands. Essential facts, as can be demonstrated, were not disclosed in the application. Therefore, I believe it is necessary to investigate and remember.

Judges usually ask questions at each presentation. However, in simulations in the courtroom or in class to reassure student lawyers, student judges do not ask questions within the first two minutes of each party`s argument. If the student commissioner holds up a five-minute warning card, the student lawyer on the podium should finish his argument and be ready to end when the marshal wields the STOP card. Once the certiorari applications have been processed, the judges begin to discuss the cases that have been heard since their last conference. According to the Minutes of the Supreme Court, all judges have the opportunity to express their views on the case and to express any questions or concerns they may have.