the supreme court has the power to review its own judgement under the constitution article.
the supreme court has the power to review its own judgement under the constitution article.
under which article supreme court has the power to review its own judgement?
the constitution
on 3 march 2011, the supreme court quashed the appointment of thomas as the chief vigilance commissioner, noting that the hpc did not consider the relevant materials on the pending charge-sheet. though thomas resigned after the court's observation, he asked the president of india to seek a review petition against the court's judgement on various grounds, including the constitutionality of the judgment. the basis for the request for the review petition, according to thomas's lawyer, wills mathews, was that the three judges' judgement on the cvc is not legally valid because article 145 (3) says that the minimum number of judges required for interpretation of constitution is five, which in effect makes the supreme court judgement null and void. mathews also questioned whether the court had exercised jurisdiction on an issue in which it was not having the jurisdiction. he claimed that the supreme court has the power to initiate the proceeding for the removal of the cvc, only on a reference made by the president, and as such there was no reference of the president of india in the present matter. thomas submitted that quashing the appointment resulted in miscarriage of justice not only for thomas but to all civil servants of the country 'because the mere lodging of an fir is sufficient to stop an honest officer from taking charge of the coveted post and shall spoil his career prospects'. the president of india however refused to consider thomas's request for the review petition and pradeep kumar was appointed as the new cvc.
p. j. thomas (indian administrative officer)
story first confronted the argument that federal judicial power came from the states, and therefore that the supreme court had no right to overrule a state's interpretation of the treaty without its consent. story found that it was clear from history and the preamble of the constitution that the federal power was given directly by the people and not by the states. story then cited article iii, sec. 2, cl. 2, stating that "in all other cases before mentioned the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction" showed a textual commitment to allow supreme court review of state decisions. if the supreme court could not review decisions from the highest state court, the state courts would be excluded from ever hearing a case in any way involving a federal question, because the supreme court would be deprived of appellate jurisdiction in those cases. thus, because it was established that the states had the power to rule on federal issues it must be true that the supreme court can review the decision or the supreme court would not have appellate jurisdiction in "all other cases." furthermore, the supremacy clause declares that the federal interpretation will trump the state's interpretation. story then quickly rejected concerns over state judicial sovereignty. under article i, section 10 the constitution outlines specific limits upon the "sovereignty" of state governments. the supreme court could already review state executive and legislative decisions and this case was no different. story then confronted the arguments that state judges were bound to uphold the constitution just as federal judges were, and so denying state interpretations presumed that the state judges would less than faithfully interpret the constitution. story countered that even if state judges were not biased, the issue was not bias but uniformity in federal law. furthermore, the legislative power to remove a case to federal court would be inadequate for maintaining this uniformity. finally, story applied these principles of judicial review to the decisions below and found that the state court's decision was in error. the vote tally was 6 to 1.
martin v. hunter's lessee