Error Apparent on the Face of the Record in Indian Law

Unveiling the "Error Apparent on the Face of the Record": A Judicial Doctrine in Indian Law

Introduction

The doctrine of "error apparent on the face of the record" is a cornerstone of judicial review and procedural rectitude within the Indian legal system. It serves as a critical ground for invoking the writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for seeking review of judgments under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and for rectification of orders under various fiscal statutes. This doctrine attempts to strike a balance between the finality of judicial and quasi-judicial decisions and the imperative to correct manifest errors that undermine justice. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of this legal concept, drawing upon seminal case law and statutory provisions prevalent in India.

Defining "Error Apparent on the Face of the Record"

The expression "error apparent on the face of the record" has not been exhaustively defined by statute, leading to its contours being shaped primarily through judicial pronouncements. The Supreme Court of India, in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others (1955 SCC 0 1104, 1954), acknowledged the inherent difficulty in precisely defining this term:

"[W]hat is an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively, there being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case." (as quoted in Avadh Naraia Singh v. Additional Superintendent Of Police, 1959 and Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited, 2008).

Despite this inherent vagueness, courts have laid down certain guiding principles. An error apparent is one that is "manifest on the face of the record" (Hari Vishnu Kamath, 1954), a "patent error and not a mere wrong decision" (T.C Basappa v. T. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440, as cited in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati And Others, 2013). It must be an error that is self-evident and does not require an elaborate process of reasoning or argument to establish (Batuk K. Vyas v. Surat Borough Municipality, ILR 1953 Bom 191, as approved in Hari Vishnu Kamath, 1954).

The Supreme Court in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. Of A.P. (AIR 1964 SC 1372) provided a practical test: "where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record." Conversely, an error which has to be established by a "long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record" (Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137).

The term "mistake apparent from the record," often found in fiscal statutes like the Income Tax Act, 1961 (e.g., Section 154), has been held to be analogous to an "error apparent on the face of the record" (T.S Balaram, Income Tax Officer, Company Circle Iv, Bombay v. M/S Volkart Brothers, Bombay, 1971 SCC 2 526; Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited, 2008).

Scope and Limitations of Review/Rectification based on "Error Apparent"

The power to correct an error apparent on the face of the record is circumscribed and distinct from appellate jurisdiction. A review or rectification proceeding is not an appeal in disguise.

Distinction from Appellate Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the power of review "may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal" (Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma And Others, 1979 SCC 4 389). In Parsion Devi And Others v. Sumitri Devi And Others (1997 SCC 8 715), the Court reiterated that "it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ‘reheard and corrected’" in review proceedings. The court or tribunal cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment (State Of West Bengal And Others v. Kamal Sengupta And Another, 2008 SCC 8 612; Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati And Others, 2013).

Grounds for Review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC

Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC allows for review of a judgment on specific grounds:

  • Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made;
  • On account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
  • For any other sufficient reason (which has been judicially interpreted to mean a reason analogous to the other two grounds).
(Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati And Others, 2013 SCC 8 320; Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik (Smt) And Others, 2006 SCC 4 78).

What Does Not Constitute an "Error Apparent"

Judicial decisions have clarified several situations that do not qualify as an error apparent:

Application in Specific Contexts

Writ of Certiorari (Article 226 of the Constitution)

One of the grounds for issuing a writ of certiorari is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others (1954), the Supreme Court clarified that the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 includes the power to quash decisions of inferior courts or tribunals where there is a "manifest error" in law. However, this power does not extend to re-appreciating evidence or correcting mere errors of fact, unless the finding of fact is based on no evidence or is perverse (Syed Yakoob v. K.S Radhakrishnan And Others, 1964 AIR SC 477). The error must be so obvious that it can be picked out by a mere look at the record without any elaborate argument.

Taxation Law (Rectification)

Fiscal statutes often contain provisions for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. For instance, Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, empowers income tax authorities to rectify such mistakes. The Supreme Court in T.S Balaram, Income Tax Officer v. M/S Volkart Brothers, Bombay (1971) held that the power to correct "any mistake apparent from the record" under Section 154 is not wider than the High Court's power to entertain a writ petition on the basis of an "error apparent on the face of the record."

In M.K Venkatachalam, Ito And Another v. Bombay Dyeing And Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1958 AIR SC 875), the Court held that a retrospective amendment to the law could render an earlier order erroneous, and such an error, if apparent from the record (when read with the amended law), could be rectified. However, if the issue involves a debatable point of law or interpretation, it cannot be rectified as an "apparent mistake" (Deva Metal Powders (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh, 2008).

Review by Courts and Tribunals (Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and Similar Provisions)

The power of review granted to courts under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, and similar powers vested in tribunals (e.g., Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as discussed in State Of West Bengal And Others v. Kamal Sengupta And Another, 2008), is strictly confined to the grounds mentioned therein, including an error apparent on the face of the record.

The discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which despite due diligence was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced earlier, is a distinct ground. An error apparent must be evident per se from the record and not require detailed examination (State Of West Bengal And Others v. Kamal Sengupta And Another, 2008, as cited in Nayanabe D Patel v. Manubhai J Hirpara, RERA, 2022). A review cannot be sought merely because the decision is erroneous on law or facts, or because a different view could have been taken (Ibid.). Successive review applications on substantially similar grounds, without satisfying the conditions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, are generally not maintainable (S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022 SCC ONLINE SC 1034).

In S. Nagaraj And Others v. State Of Karnataka And Another (1993 SCC SUPP 4 595), the Supreme Court recognized its inherent power to rectify its own orders to prevent a miscarriage of justice, especially if an order was passed under a mistake or based on misrepresentation. While this power is broad, the specific ground of "error apparent" for review remains within the established narrow confines.

An assumption of facts not borne out by the record can constitute an error apparent (Fauja Singh And Others, Petitioners. v. The Director, Consolidation Of Holdings, Jullundur And Others, Punjab & Haryana High Court, 1957). Similarly, failure to consider material evidence on record may constitute an error apparent (Shibpur Hindu Girls' High School & Ors. v. Sujit Kumar Banerjee & Ors., Calcutta High Court, 2006, citing Green View Tea Industries v. Collector, Golaghat, Assam, 2004 (4) SCC 122).

Distinguishing "Error Apparent" from Other Types of Errors

It is crucial to distinguish an "error apparent on the face of the record" from other types of errors:

  • Mere Error of Law v. Error of Law Apparent: Not every error of law is an error apparent. An error of law which is not self-evident and requires argument and research to establish is a mere error of law, correctable in appeal, but not necessarily by certiorari or review on this ground.
  • Error of Fact: Generally, an error of fact, however grave, is not a ground for certiorari unless it is a jurisdictional fact, a finding based on no evidence, or a perverse finding that no reasonable person could have arrived at (Syed Yakoob v. K.S Radhakrishnan And Others, 1964). Review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC also does not typically extend to correcting errors of fact unless they are apparent from the record itself without further investigation.

Judicial Approach and Interpretation

The judiciary has adopted a cautious approach, emphasizing that the determination of whether an error is "apparent on the face of the record" must be made on a case-by-case basis (Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others, 1954; Avadh Naraia Singh v. Additional Superintendent Of Police, 1959). The "self-evident" test, while useful, is not foolproof, as "judicial opinions also differ, and an error that might be considered by one Judge as self-evident might not be so considered by another" (Hari Vishnu Kamath, 1954, citing Chagla, C.J. in Batuk K. Vyas).

The underlying principle is that the error must be patent, manifest, and obvious, requiring no deep probing or elaborate reasoning for its detection. The power is not to be exercised lightly, as it impinges upon the finality of decisions.

Conclusion

The doctrine of "error apparent on the face of the record" is a vital tool in the Indian legal system for ensuring judicial and administrative accountability without opening the floodgates to endless litigation. It permits the correction of obvious and patent errors that have crept into decisions, thereby upholding the rule of law. While its precise definition remains elusive, the extensive body of case law provides substantial guidance on its scope and application. Courts and tribunals must continue to tread carefully, ensuring that this power is exercised strictly within its judicially defined parameters, distinguishing it clearly from appellate powers, and thereby maintaining the delicate equilibrium between the need for justice and the principle of finality. The consistent emphasis on the error being "self-evident" or "staring one in the face" underscores the limited nature of this corrective jurisdiction.