1. Court v. Error v. Review.—"Everybody is presumed to know the law except His Majesty's judges, who have a court of appeal set over them to put them right." It is with this classic caustic remark attributed to Judge Maule1 that Prof Helen Silving "First Lady of American Criminal Law"2 and Prof Paul K. Ryu (of Korea) open their research paper "Error Juris; a Comparative Study".3 Abbott, C.J., in Montriou v. Jefferys4exclaimed, "God forbid that it should be imagined that an attorney, or a counsel, or even a judge is bound to know all the law!" Mr Justice Jackson of the U.S. Supreme Court has observed,5 "Whenever decision of one court are reviewed by another, a percentage of them are reversed. That reflects a difference in outlook normally found between personnel comprising different courts. However, reversal by a higher court is not proof that justice is thereby better done.
There is no doubt that if there were a super-Supreme Court, a substantial proportion of our reversal of State Courts would also be reversed. We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."6 Our Supreme Court is the highest court of the land from whose judgment there is no appeal and under Article 141 of the Constitution of India the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India. Because to err is human and because there is no appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court, to rectify the error, to prevent the failure and miscarriage of justice and to promote and perpetuate justice, under Article 137, power has been conferred on the Supreme Court, "to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it".
In the judgment of the Supreme Court in Food Inspector,Calicut Corporation v. Cherukattil Gopalan (hereinafter referred to as Gopalan case7) we submit that there is a triple error; going to the root of the matter, and the interpretation by the Supreme Court of Gopalan case in Mohammed Yamin v.State of U.P.8 is erroneous. The Supreme Court ought to review them suo motu in exercise of its power under Article 137.
(Recd thru P.Ramanathan)
Click Here to read 'Erroneous Decisions by the Supreme Court of India'