Page 94 - 5_COMPENDIUM VOL-5

VOLUME – V CHAPTER 1

said proceedings have resulted in denial of the fundamental rights

guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or if the said proceedings

suffer from a jurisdictional error or any error of law apparent on the

face of the record.”

30. How can courts countenance a scenario where even in the

aforesaid position, a party is left remediless? It would neither be legal

nor appropriate for this Court to say something to the contrary or restrict

the aforesaid observation enunciated in the Constitution Bench judgment

23
in S.N. Mukherjee case. We would loath to carve out any exceptions,

including the ones enumerated by the learned Additional Solicitor

General extracted aforesaid as irrespective of the nature of the matter, if

there is a denial of a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution

or there is a jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of the

record, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction. There appears to be

a misconception that the High Court would re-appreciate the evidence,

thereby making it into a second appeal, etc. We believe that the High

Courts are quite conscious of the parameters within which the

jurisdiction is to be exercised, and those principles, in turn, are also

already enunciated by this Court.

23
(supra)
21

82