Courts exercising review jurisdiction must satisfy itself of errors apparent on record: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that courts while exercising their review jurisdiction, should have to satisfy itself of any error apparent on the face of the record [Ratan Lal Patel v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya and Another]..A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held as unsustainable in law the hearing of a review petition by the Madhya Pradesh High Court without it detailing what such error was."Merely stating that there is an error apparent on the face of the record is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated that in fact there was an error apparent on the face of the record," the Court said. .The Bench was hearing an appeal assailing the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had allowed a review petition and recalled a November 10, 2020 order passed by it. The top court noted that nothing had been stated by the High Court regarding any error apparent on the face of the record that called for allowing the review application..Terming the error cryptic, non-reasoned and non-speaking order, the top court observed that there must be a speaking and reasoned order as to apparent errors that called for interference by the High Court. "Unless such reasons are given and unless what was that error apparent on the face of the record stated and mentioned in the order, the higher forum would not be in a position to know what has weighed with the Court while exercising the review jurisdiction and what was that error apparent on the face of the record," the Bench observed. .The Court, therefore, set aside the High Court order and remitted the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration to decide and dispose of the review application afresh, in accordance with law and within the parameters of its review jurisdiction.The High Court should, thereafter, pass a speaking and reasoned order, the top court ruled..Advocate-on-Record Arjun Garg, with advocates Aakash Nandolia and Sagun Srivastava appeared for the appellant.Advocate-on-Record Mritunjay Kumar Sinha with advocates Amitesh Kumar and Binisa Mohanty appeared for the respondent..[Read Judgment]