Different opinion by same judge in review, erodes faith: HC

People's faith in the judicial system would be eroded and its credibility would be at stake if the same judge arrives at a different opinion on a review of a verdict by him, based on similar facts and averments, Delhi High Court said today.
The remarks were made by a bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw which went into a review plea against the decision given in a case by them.
The bench dismissed the review plea saying no new facts have been placed before it and the issues raised in the plea were already dealt with by the court earlier.

"However, if it were to be held that we today are entitled to form a different opinion than what we had formed earlier, the same in our view is coupled with the danger of eroding the faith in the judicial system and the consumers of the judicial system believing that the judges can be prevailed upon to so change their opinion/judgment," the bench said.
The court held that arguments advanced before it during hearing on the review plea was already considered carefully by the bench in the verdict, of which review was sought.
"In this circumstance, if we are to now reach a different conclusion than was reached earlier, the same in our view will put the credibility of the judicial system and this court at stake," the bench noted.

"We cannot be unmindful of the fact that we have on an earlier occasion, after hearing the counsel and reserving the judgment, not found the petitioner entitled to the relief. We have wondered, whether our judicial system permits the courts /judges to so change their minds/opinions, when approached in review," it said.
The bench said "after all we, as judges, are continuously evolving and our beliefs and opinions are changing with each day's experience and judgments read by us and cited before us. Inspite of our best efforts, due to repeated adjournments sought, the review petition has remained pending for nearly one and a half years".

The court's order came on a plea filed by a firm seeking review of the August 2014 judgement dismissing their plea against the March 2011 orders of the Zonal Joint Director General of Foreign Trade of denying deemed export benefits.