REMDEO CHAUHAN @ RAJNATH CHAUHAN versus BANI KANT DAS AND ORS.

22. Challenging the aforesaid order of the Governor, of Assam, the relatives of the deceased filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before this Court. In that E proceeding, Secretary NHRC was impleaded. However, this . court, by an order dated 21 .1.2009, issued notice to Prof. Ved Kumari, asking her to state how her complaint before NHRC was maintainable. Pursuant thereto, Prof. Ved Kumari submitted an affidavit before this Court on 3.2.2009, stating that . F '. the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 applied to all pending cases and was extended to all children who had not completed 18 years of age; and thus it would also be applicable to the present case.

23. After hearing the matter, the Bench comprising of one of us passed an order on 8.5.2009, setting aside the Governor's order dated 28.1.2002 of commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment.

24. In passing that order, the Bench was of the opinion that . H the NHRC proceedings were not in line with the procedure REMDEO CHAUHAN @ RAJNATH CHAUHAN v. BANI KANT DAS [AS)?K KU~AR GANGULY, J.] : established under the Protection of Human Ri~hts Act, 1993 A (hereinafter,· 'the 1993 Act') and ·, therefore, NHRC's . ~ecomm_endations were void. Further, the order of the Governor · of Assam directing commutation did not indicate any reason · an~ was based on the recommendations of NHRC, which itself w~e without jurisdiction. Thus, the writ petition was allowed and the order·of the Governor of Assam was quashed and this Court directed Je-consideration afresh of the petitioner's prayer for cbmmu.tation of sen~ence .

25. This instant review petition (hereinafter, the second review) is directed against this Court's order dated 8.5.2009. C

26. In this second review, notice was issued by this Bench for formal hearing by an order dated 3rd September, 2009. One of the reasons for issuing notice was that one of the grounds put forward w~s that the judgment under review was passed .D without hearin·g Ram Deo Chauha~ ; 'the petitioner, and without; providing him leg_al aid. However,· i:dmost at the conclusion of the heC:tring of this proceeding, this Court found that the aforesaid representation was not correct. The correct position was that by an. order dated 1-9th November, 2005, Mr. Muralidhar ·was· appointed by_ the Registrar of this Court to represe"nt the petitioner. After Mr. Muralidhar, became a Judge of Delhi High Court, the Registrar appointed one Mr. Vijay Panjwani,. an advocate of this Court, to represent the review petWoner.:Mr. Parijwani filed a counter affidavit in the Article . 32 proceeding. Ho~ever, from the judgment under review, it ! do~s _not appear ttia't Mr. Panjwani appeared before the Court and made his submissions.

27. He that as· it may, it is not co.rrect to say that no notice was given to the petitioner. Therefore, one of the grounds on G ! which notice fo'r r~view was issued became non-existent.

28. The question is whether this second review should be dismissed in view of such misleading stand havi!lg been taken by the petitioner while invoking this Court's jurisdiction of review.

29. On a very careful consideration of this issue, this Court thinks that in view of various other questions of far reaching importance having been raised in this second review, it may be a travesty of justice if this petition is dismissed on only the ground mentioned above.

30. This Court on a contested hearing is of the opinion that the second review should still be entertained and decided as it raises various questions of signal significance, touching the rights of the petitioner to seek commutation as also touching questions regarding the jurisdiction of the NHRC, as also various constitutional provisions relating to life and freedom. Various concerns of public law have come up for consideration in this second review and in the context of these issues the constitutional provision of Article 137 for review of judgment and order of this Court may have to be examined. Article 137 of the Constitution provides as follows: "137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court: Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.

31. In terms of Article 137, Rules have been framed under Article 145 of the Constitution and Part VIII Order XL of the said Rules deals with review.

32. Order XL Rule 1 provides that in reviewing the G judgment in a civil proceeding, the Court will follow the grounds in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. However, in case of review of criminal proceedings, no review is permissible except on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record.

33. The extent of the review power of this Court came up REMDEO CHAUHAN @ RAJNATH CHAUHAN v. BANI KANT DAS [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.] for consideration in several cases. In M/s Northern India A Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi reported in 1980 (2) SCC 167, a three Judge Bench of this Court examined the scope of this power and held that if the attention of the Court is not drawn to any material statutory provision during the original hearing, that is a ground of review. The Court 8 also held that it may reopen its own judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an orde1 to do full and effective justice.

34. In Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and others reported in 2004 (12) SCC 713, this Court dealing with its C power of review held in para 19: "19. It is no doubt true that in appropriate cases this Court may pass an order ex debito justitiae by correcting mi~takes in the judgment but inherent power of this Court D can be exercised only when there does not exist any other provision in that behalf …… n

35. In a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Suthendra Raja alias Suthenthira Raja alias Santhan & Ors. E v. State through DSPICBI, SIT, Chennai reported in 1999 (9) sec 323, this Court held that the scope of review in criminal proceedings has been considerably widened in the P.N. Eswara lyer and others v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India [1980 (4) sec 680}. To maintain a review in a criminal case, what has F to be considered is whether there has been a miscarriage of justice.

36. In this connection, this Court finds that in the Supreme Court Rules framed under Article 145 of the Constitution, there is a clear provision in Order XL Rule 6 of the Rules to the G following effect: "6. Nothing in these Rules shalt be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to make su~h orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice H . or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court."

37. In Girdhari La/ Gupta v. D.N. Mehta & Anr. reported in AIR 1971 SC 2162, this Court held when the attention of this Court is not drawn to any particular provision of a statute, this court can review the decision and it is not the case of a mere mistaken judgment. (Para 16, pg 2164)

38. On a bare reading of the provision of Or.der XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, one may get the impression that the e):tent of review in criminal cases is more restricted than in C civil cases. But the said impression has been given a quietus by this Court in its Constitution Bench judgment in Eswara case (supra).

39. Delivering the main judgment, Justice Krishna lyer held- D "So it is reasonable to assume that the framers of the rules could not have intended a restrictive review over criminal orders or judgments. It is likely to be the other way about. Supposing an accused is sentenced to death by the Supreme Court and the 'deceased' shows up in court and the court discovers the tragic treachery of the recorded testimony. Is the court helpless E to review and set aside the sentence of hanging? We think not. The power to review is in Article 137 and it is equally wide in all proceedings. The Rule merely canalizes the flow from the reservoir of power. The stream cannot stifle the source. Moreover, the dynamics of interpretation depend on the demand of the context and the lexical limits of the test. Here _'record' means any material which is already on record or may, with the permission of the court, be brought on record. If justice summons the judges to allow a vital material in, it becomes part of the record; and if apparent error is there, correction becomes G necessitous." (See para 34, pg. 695)

40. Keeping those parameters in mind, let us consider the extent to which power of review can be extended in the facts of this second review. REMDEO CHAUHAN @ RAJNATH CHAUHAN v. BANI KANT DAS [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.] 41 . In our view several aspects of this Court'"s judgment dated 8.5.2009, rendered on the Article 32 petition, call for a review. 42. In the judgment which is under review in the second review petition, the Court concluded: (a) NHRC has no jurisdiction to interfere and make a recommendation, and (b) The order of the Governor in commuting the sentence of death to one of life is bad in law as it c did not disclose any reason. 43. On a review, we are constrained to hold that both findings on (a) and (b) are vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record. A.Jurisdiction of NHRC 44. The NHRC was constituted under Section 3 of the 1993 Act for better protection of human rights. The term 'human _ rights' as defined in Section 2(d) of the 1993 Act, reads as follows: "2. (d) "Human rights" means the right~ relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and .enforceable by court~ in India." 45. The functions of NHRC have been set out in Section . 12 of the 1993 Act. Section 12 reads as follows: "12. Functions of the Commission- The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions namely: a. inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf or on a direction or order of any cou~, into complaint of (i) violation of human rights or abetment thereof; or c (ii) negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant; b. intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending before a court with the approval of such court; c. visit, notwithstand.ing anything contained in any other law for tn:J time being in force, any jail or other institution under the control of the State Government, where persons are detained or lodged for purposes of treatment, reformation or protection, for the study of the living conditions of the inmates thereof and make recommendations thereon to the Government; d. review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the time being in force for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation; e. review the factors, including acts of terrorism, that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights and recommend appropriate remedial measures; f. study treaties and other international instruments on human rights and make recommendations for their effective implementation; g. undertake and promote research in the field of human rights; h. spread human rights literacy among various sections of society and promote awareness of the safeguards available for the protection of these rights through publications, the media, seminars and other available means; REMDEO CHAUHAN @ RAJNATH CHAUHAN v. ~1 BANI KANT DAS [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.] i. encourage the efforts of non-governmental organization and institutions working in the field of human rights; j. such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of human rights." 46. The NHRC has been constituted to inquire into cases of violation of and for protection and promotion of human rights. This power is an extensive one, which should not be narrowly viewed. 47. It must be jurisprudentially accepted that human right is a broad concept and cannot be straitjacketed within narrow confines. Any attempt to do so would truncate its all-embracing scope and reach; and denude it of its vigour and vitality. That is why, in seeking to define human rights, the Legislature has used such a wide expression in section 2(d} of the Act. It is also o significant to note that while defining the powers and functions of NHRC under section 12 of the Act, the said broad vision has been envisioned in the residuary clause in Section 120). 48. Therefore, it is imperative that while interpreting the powers and jurisdiction of NHRC, the Court construes section 2(d) of the 1993 Act along with its long title and also the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act. The relevant portion of the statement of objects and reasons are excerpted below: "2. However, there has been growing concern in the country and abroad about issues relating to human rights. Having regard to this, changing social realities and the emerging trends in the nature of crime and violence, Government has been reviewing the existing laws, procedu.res, and system of administration of justice; with a view to bringing about greater accountability and transparency in them, and devising efficient and effective . methods of dealing with the situation." c 49. In his Tagore Law Lecture (The Dialectics and Dynamics of Human Rights in India), Justice V.R. Krishna lyer describes the width and sweep of human rights in his matchless words and which are worth quoting: "Human rights are writ on a large canvas, as large as the sky. The law makers, lawyers and.particularly, the judges, must make the printed text vibrant with human values, not be scared of consequences on the status quo order. The militant challenges of today need a mobilization of revolutionary consciousness sans which civilized systems cease to exist. Remember, we are all active navigators, not idle passengers, on spaceship earth as it ascends to celestial levels of the glorious human future." 50. We share the same view. 51. What was said by Alexander Hamilton, the great constitutional expert and political philosopher, way back in 1775, is poignant still today for having a clear perception of what human rights are. The words of Hamilton still resonate with E a strange relevance and immediacy, and are quoted below: "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." 52. Keeping those broad principles in our mind if we look at Section 120) of the 1993 Act, we find that it confers on NHRC -"such other functions as it may consider necessary for the G promotion of human rights.:· It is not necessary that each and every case relating to the violation of human rights will fit squarely within the four corners of section 12 of the 1993 Act, for invoking the jurisdiction of the NHRC. One must accept that human rights are not like edicts inscribed on a rock. They are .H made and unmade on the crucible of experience and through · REMDEO CHAUHAN @ RAJNATH CHAUHAN v. BANI KANT DAS [ASO~ KUMAR GA_NGULY, J .] .irreversible process of human struggle for freedom. They admit of a certain degree of fluidity. Categories of human right~. being of infinite variety, are never really closed. That is why the residuary clause in sub-section U) has been so widely worded to take care of situations not covered by sub-sections (a) to (i) of Section 12 of the 1993 Act. The jurisdiction of NHRC thus stand·s enlarged by section 120} of the 1993 Act, to take necessary action for the protection of human rights. Such action would include inqujring into cases where a party has .been · , deni~d the protection of any law to which he is entitled, whether , by a private party, a public institution, the government or even c · the Courts of law. We are of the opinion that if a person is entitled to benefit under a particular law, and benefits under that law .have been denied to him, it will amount to a violation of his human rights. 53. Human ~ights are the basic, inherent, immutable and inalienable rights to which a person is entitled simply by virtue of his being born. a human. They ~re such rights which are to be made available as a matter of right. Constitution and Legislations of civilized country recognise them' since they are so quintessentially part of every human· being. That is why every democratic country ·committed to rule of Law put into force mechanisms for their enforcement and protection. HLfman rights are universal in nature. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights {here~nafter referred · to as UDHR) adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 1Oth December 1948 recognizes and requires the observance of certain universal rights. articulated therein. 'to be human rights, and these are acknowledged and accepted as equal and inalienable and necessary for the inherent dignity and development of an individual. Consequently, though the term 'human rights' itself has not been defined in UDHR, the nature and content of human rights can be understood from the rights enunciated therein. 54. Possibly considering the wide sweep of such basic H A rights, the definition of 'human rights' in the 1993 Act has been designedly kept very broad to encompass within it all the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by Courts in India. 55. Thus, if a person has been guaranteed certain rights either under the Constitution or under an International Covenant or under a law, and he is denied access to such a right, then· it amounts to a clear violation of his human right and NHRC has C the jurisdiction to intervene for protecting it. 56. The contrary finding in the judgment under review about the absence of jurisdiction of NHRC to make some recommendations to the Governor is thus vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record. Of course NHRC cannot D intervene in proceeding pending in Court without its approval [Section 12(6)] as it is assumed that Court will remedy any case of violation of human rights. 57. The assumption in the judgment under review that there E can be no violation of a person's human right by a judgment of this Court is possibly not correct. This Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction has to deal with many judgments of High Courts and Tribunals in which the High Courts or the Tribunals, on an erroneous perception of facts and law, have rendered · decisions in breach of human rights of the parties and this Court · F corrects such errors in those judgments. 58. The instances of this Court's judgment violating the ·human rights of the citizens may be extremely rare but it cannot be said that such a situation can never happen. 59. We can remind ourselves of the majority decision of the Constitution Bench of this court in Additional District Magistrate Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla reported in (1976) 2 sec s21. 60. The majority opinion was that in view of the Presidential . REMDEO CHAUHAN @ RAJNATH CHAUHAN v. BANI KANT DAS [ASOK KUMAR GAN<;3U~y, )..} . order dated 27.6.1975 under Article 359(1) of the Constitution, no person has the loc~.:~s standi to move any writ petition under Article 226 before a High Court for Habeas Corpus or any other writ to enforce any right to personal liberty of a person detained under the then law of preventive detention{ Maintenance of Internal Security Act of 1971}, on the· ground that the order is 8 illegal or malafide or not in compliance with the Act.(See paras 78 and 136 of the report) 61 . The lone dissenting voice of Justice K!Janna interpreted the legal position differently by inter alia holding: "(8) Article 226 under which the High Courts can issue writs of Habeas Corpus is an integral part of the Constitution. No power has been conferred upon any authority in the Constitution for suspending the power of c the High Court to issue writs in the nature of habeas corpu~ – . D during the. period of emergency-. Such a result cannot be· brought about by putting some particular construction on the Presidential order in question."(Point 8 at page 777 of the report) 62. There is no doubt that the majority judgment of this court in the ADM Jabalpur case (sup ~a) violated the fundamental rights of a large number of people in this country. Commenting on the majority judgment, Chief Justice Venkatachalliah in the Khanna Memorial Lecture delivered on . 25.2 . 2009, observed that the same be 'confined to the dustbin of history.' The learned Chief Justice equated Justice Khanna's dissent with the celebrated dissent of Lord Atkins in Liversidge v. Sir John Anderson reported in (1942) AC 206. 63. In fact the dissent of Justice Khanna became the_ law of the land when, by virtue of the Forty Fourth Constitutional Amendment, Articles 20 and 21 were excluded from the purview of suspension during emergency. 64. But we hasten to add that NHRC cannot function as a 986 SUPREME COURT REPOR~S {2010}15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A parallel seat of justice to rectify or correct or comment upon orders passed by this Court or any other Courts of competent jurisdiction. For correcting an order in a judicial proceeding, the aggrieved party has to avail of the well established gamut of the corrective machinery of appeal, revision, review, curative B petit!on and so on. 65. In fact in this case the NHRC did not send any recommendation as .long as the first review proceedings were pending in this C<?tJrt. The NHRC was keeping a track of the C proceeding in the Cou-rt. From its order dated 16.1 0.09, it is revealed that NHRC was aware that a review petition was filed against the judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 4/ 2000, in addition to a mercy-petition filed before the Governor of Assam. The NHRC closely followed the proceedings of the review petition. 66. The NHRC made its recommendations on 21 .5.2001 only after_ the judgment in first review. (No.11 osi2.000) was passed on 10.5.2001 by this Court. 67. About NHRC, this Court in Paramjit Kaur v_ State of Punjab and Ors. – (1999) 2 SCC 131 held: "10. The Commission headed by a former Chief Justice ·of India is a unique expert body in itself. The Fundamental Rights, contained in Part Ill of the Constitution of India, r~present the basic human rights possessed by every human being in this world inhabited by people of different continents, countries, castes, co.lours and religions. The country, the colour and the religion may have divided them into different groups but as human beings, they are all one and possess the same rights." 11. The Chairman of the Commission, in his capacity as a Judge of the High Court and then as a Judge of this · Court and also as the Chief Justice of India, and so also two other members who have held high judicial offices as REMDEO CHAUHAN @ RAJNATH CHAUHAN v. BANI KANT DAS [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.] Chief Justices of the High Courts, have throughout their tenure, considered, expounded and enforced the Fundamental Rights and are, in their own way, experts in the field. The Commission, therefore, is truly an expert body to which a reference flas been made by this Court in the instant case." 68. After the aforesaid observations this court decided that when in exercise of its power under Article 32, this Court· gives any directions to NHRC, then like all other authorities in this country, NHRC is bound by such directions. In such situations, NHRC acts 'sui-generis'. The statutory bar of limitation under Section 36(2} of the 1993 Act will not stand in the way (paras 12 and 15, pages 137-138 of the report). 69. Therefore, NHRC, a statutory body, in a given situation, may have to act under the order or direction given by this Court in exercise of its constitutional power of judicial review. 70. However, in the facts of this case, NHRC has not committed any illegality by taking into consideration the article written by Professor Ved Kumari and then making a mere recommendation to the Governor, for considering the , petitioner's plea for commutation. We are of the opinion that in doing so, NHRC acted within its jurisdiction. · · … Whether non-disclosure of reason vitiates the Order of the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution? 71 . In the judgment on Article 32 petition, it was noted that the order of the Governor directing commutation "does .not indicate any reason" and this, according to the judgment is contrary to a decision of this Court in Epuru Sudhakar and another v. Government of A.P. & Ors., reported in 2006 (8) SCC 161 . The impugned judgment quotes para 38 from Epuru • (supra). 72. After quoting that, the impugned judgment quashes the A order of commutation by the Governor and directed reconsideration. 73. On review of the aforesaid reasoning, we find that this finding in the judgment is vitiated by errors apparent on the face B of the record. 74. In this case, the entire record relating to exercise of power by the Governor was always available for perus.al of the Court. c 75. It is well-settled that while exercising power of commutation under Article 161 of the Constitution, the Governor is to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. 76. From a perusal of the materials on the file, it appears that detailed consideration has been made in the Chief 0 Minister's Secretariat and notes in detail have been put up by the Chief Minister's Secretariat, wherein the entire factual aspect of the case has been considered. The different judgments given in the first review petition were part of the note, and on a consideration of the detailed note, the Chief Minister E approved on 22.10.2001 the note put up before him by the Secretary, Judicial Department for commutation. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Governor's Secretariat with the · … entire record. The Hon'ble Governor approved the proposal on 12.1.2002. Therefore, more than adequate reasons are F available on the records of the case. 77. It was open to the Bench passing the judgment under review to peruse the entire record. 78. However, on the extent of judicial review in respect of G exercise of power by the Governor under Article 161, or by the President under Article 72, there are authoritative pronouncements by this Court and the matter is no longer res- integra. 79. In G. Krishta Goud & J. Bhoomaiah v. State of Andhra REMDEO CHAUHAN @ RAJNATH CHAUHAN v. -989 BANI KANT DAS [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.) Pradesh & Ors. reported in (1976) 1 SCC 157, this Court while construing the extent of judicial review in connection with exercise of clemency power by the President or the Governor respectively under Articles 72 and 161 held that even though the power granted to the highest executive authority is not totally immune from judicial review, but Court makes an almost extreme presumption in favour of bonafide exercise of such power (Para 8). However, in para 9 the Court sounded a note of caution that where the exercise of power is just by way of a rule of thumb and totally arbitrarily or out of personal vendetta, the Court is not helpless. (See para 9) c '-·- 80. This question again came up for detailed consideration before the Constitution Bench in the case of Maru Ram v. Union of India & Ors. reported in ( 1981) 1 SCC 1 07. In para 72 at page 153 of the report, this court was summarizing its , . conclusions and in sub-para 9 it was held that only in rare cases the Court wou ld examine the exercise of power by the appropriate authority. Subsequently, in Kehar Singh & Anr. v. Union oflndia & Anr. reported in (1989) 1 SCC 204, again by a Constitution Bench of this Court, the extent of exercise of this · power of clemency was considered. In para 13, Chief Justice Pathak, speaking for the Constitution Bench, held- " Nor do we dispute that the power to pardon belongs exclusively to the President and the Governor under the Constitution. There is also no question involved in this case of asking for the reasons for the President's order. And none of the cases cited for the respondents beginning with Mohinder Singh Gill (1977 (3) sec 346) advance the case of the respondent any further." (emphasis added) 81 . It also appears from para 11 of Kehar Singh (supra) that it relies on the formu ~ations of principles in Maru Ram (supra). Paras 7 and 15 of Kehar Singh (supra) would also show that Maru Ram .(supra) ratio was followed in Kehar Singh (supra). 82. In view of such consistent view of the two Constitution Benches of this court clearly stating that unless the exercise of power by the Governor under Article 161 , is ex facie perverse or is ·based on a rule of thumb, the Court should not interfere for mere non-disclosure of reason, the finding to the contrary B in the judgment under review, by relying on a two-judge Bench decision in Epuru (supra) case, is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record. Even in para 37 in Epuru (supra), the observation of Kehar Singh (supra), underlined hereinabove were noted. c 83. In the instant case, a perusal of the record shows that upon a detailed consideration of the relevant facts, the Governor exercised his power of commutation. Such an . exercise does not call for any interference, in view of the law …. · laid down both in Maru Ram (supra) and Kehar Singh (supra). 84. From the perusal of the file this Court also notes that in passing the order, the Governor considered all the relevant materials, including the judgment of three learned Judges in the first review petition filed by the petitioner, as also the E recommendation of NHRC. 85. This Court has already held that NHRC has the jurisdiction, in the facts of this case, to make its recommendation to the Governor to take into account the materials which NHRC considered. This court also finds that F the Governor considered, apart from the said recommendation of NH!1C, other relevant materials also and, therefore, the order of the Governor is not vitiated in as much as it is not solely based on the recommendations of NHRC. 86. Now the only question which remains to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled to insist on a fresh look at his juvenility and a fresh consideration of his rights in view of the changes in the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 by 2006 amendment. REMDEO CHAUHAN @ RAJNATH CHAUHAN v. BANI KANT DAS [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.] 87. This point has not been stated in the review petition even though this was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 88. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, the amicus appearing inJhe case, objected to this Court making a pronouncement. on this question which is argued for the first time in review even though it is not pleaded in the review petition ~s a ground for review. , . . 89. This court finds some substanc~ in the said objection. We have already indicated that in 'the Article 32 petition notice was served on the review petitioner and it was open to him to raise these points in that proceeding as by that time the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 20qo as amended by the 2006 amendment Act. had come into force.' 90. EveA though the ambit of the review petition has been o. widened by this Court in Eswara (supra), it has t9 foll9w broadly the· principles of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 C?f th_e Code of Civil Proceflure .. 91 . Following the discipline of Order XLVII, Rule 1 or the: concept of 'an error apparent on the face of the record', we possibly cannot pronounce in a review petition on a question, which was open to be raised in the original proceeding, but was not raised. That apart, it has not at all been pleaded in the • ~eview petition. For these reasons, this Court refrains itself from . pronouncing on the rights of-the petitioner under Juvenile Justice . ·(Care and Protection) Act, 2000 as amended by the 2006 · Amendment. If he is so advised, it is' open to the petitioner to · agitate on his rights under the said Act before the appmpriate , Forum and in appropriate .proceedings. 92. If such a prgcee<;fing is initiated by the petitioner, the same will be dealt with without ·being impeded· by any observation made or_ finding reached in any of the judgments arising out of the concerned criminal case against the petitioner, by any Court, including this Court. 93. For the reasons discussed above and considering the c aforesaid legal issues, this Court concludes as follows: (i) The judgment of this Court dated 8.5.2009 on Article 32 petition and which is under Review is set aside. (ii) The order of the Governor dated 28.1.2002 passed under Article 161 of the Constitution is restored and the order of commutation of death sentence awarded to the petitioner to one of life imprisonment stands. (iii) This Court holds that in the facts of this case, NHRC had the jurisdiction to make the relevant recommendation. 94. The review petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 95. Parties are left to bear their own costs. B.B.B. Review Petition allowed