1998 JTR(SC) 219
1998 AIR(SC) 1205 ; 1998 AIR(SCW) 1012 ; 1998 3 APLJ 15 ; 1998 2 AWC 1180 ; 1998 1 CTC 435 ; 1998 ILR(Kar) 1421 ; 1998 1 JT 718 ; 1998 2 RSJ 153 ; 1998 1 Scale 634 ; 1998 3 SCC 5 ; 1998 1 SCR 897 ; 1998 KHC 1518 ; 1998 1 KLT(Online) 1116 ; 1998 2 Supreme 58
1998(2) Supreme 58
Supreme Court of India
M.M. Punchhi, CJI, B.N. Kirpal and M. Srinivasan, JJ.
Central Board of Secondary Education -Petitioner
versus
Nikhil Gulati & Anr. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18853 of 1997
(With SLPs 19513 & 19057/1997)
Decided on 13-2-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Mr. T.C. Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Mr. Ajay Sharma and Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. S.K. Jain and Mr. A.P. Dhamija, Advocates.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136, Art.226
(A) The referenced constitutional provisions Article 136 and Article 226 confer the power of extraordinary remedies before the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively; however, their invocation must be restrained and principled. The Court cautions that sporadic irregularities of permitting ineligible students to appear in examinations, though corrected by judicial vigilance, must not be allowed to crystallize into a precedent, lest the rule of law yield to ad hoc discretion. When a higher court recognizes its own departure from sound principle, repetitive recourse to such orders undermines institutional integrity and mocks the rule of law.
(B) Courts must eschew casual discretion, avoid setting erroneous precedents, and resist repetitive relaxation of eligibility norms; otherwise, the rule of law is subverted.
Facts of the case:
Occasional instances where ineligible students were permitted by court orders to undertake Board and/or University examinations came before the court, and the students raised expectations of relief based on such prior orders.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that such episodic aberrations should not be treated as precedent and that any discretion exercised without principled basis constitutes an abuse of process.
Issues:
Whether sporadic judicial relaxations of eligibility can be relied upon as a precedent.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court declined to interfere under Article 136, emphasizing that unprincipled, fact-specific dispensations must not be repeated, to preserve the rule of law and prevent erosion of examination integrity.
Result:
The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed.
(A) The referenced constitutional provisions Article 136 and Article 226 confer the power of extraordinary remedies before the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively; however, their invocation must be restrained and principled. The Court cautions that sporadic irregularities of permitting ineligible students to appear in examinations, though corrected by judicial vigilance, must not be allowed to crystallize into a precedent, lest the rule of law yield to ad hoc discretion. When a higher court recognizes its own departure from sound principle, repetitive recourse to such orders undermines institutional integrity and mocks the rule of law.
(B) Courts must eschew casual discretion, avoid setting erroneous precedents, and resist repetitive relaxation of eligibility norms; otherwise, the rule of law is subverted.
Facts of the case:
Occasional instances where ineligible students were permitted by court orders to undertake Board and/or University examinations came before the court, and the students raised expectations of relief based on such prior orders.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that such episodic aberrations should not be treated as precedent and that any discretion exercised without principled basis constitutes an abuse of process.
Issues:
Whether sporadic judicial relaxations of eligibility can be relied upon as a precedent.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court declined to interfere under Article 136, emphasizing that unprincipled, fact-specific dispensations must not be repeated, to preserve the rule of law and prevent erosion of examination integrity.
Result:
The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed.
Order
Occasional aberrations such as these, whereby ineligible students are permitted, under court orders, to undertake Board and/or University examinations, have caught the attention of this Court many a time. To add to it further, the courts have almost always observed that the instance of such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent in future. Such casual discretions by the Court is nothing but an abuse of the process’ more so when the High Court at its level itself becomes conscious that the decision was wrong and was not worth repeating as a precedent. And yet it is repeated time and again. Having said this much, we hope and trust that unless the High Court can justify its decision on principle and precept, it should better desist from passing such orders, for it puts the ‘Rule of Law’ to a mockery, and promotes rather the ‘Rule of Man’.
2. All the same, fond hopes were raised in the minds of the students herein, Therefore, we decline to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. The S.L.Ps. are, accordingly, dismissed.
SLPs dismissed.
*********
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati, 1998(2) Supreme 58 : AIR 1998 SC 1205 : (1998) 3 SCC 5 : 1998(1) Scale 634 : 1998(II) AD (SC) 209 : JT 1998(1) SC 718
00021