Holding

The review petitions are dismissed as they were filed outside the statutory thirty‑day period and no valid grounds for review were established.

Summary

The State of Goa and Vedanta Ltd. filed review petitions against the Supreme Court's judgment in Goa Foundation v. Sesa Sterlite Ltd. (2018) more than 650 and 907 days, respectively, after the judgment was delivered on 7 February 2018. Under Rule 2 of Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, a review must be filed within thirty days, and the petitioners offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Court noted that the judges who delivered the original judgment had retired before the petitions were filed, a practice it disapproved to protect institutional sanctity. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review petitions on the ground of limitation and, finding no substantive grounds for review, also dismissed them on merits. All pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether a review petition filed beyond the thirty‑day period prescribed by Rule 2 of Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 is maintainable.
Whether the retirement of the judges who delivered the original judgment can justify condonation of the delay.
Whether any legitimate grounds for review were raised by the petitioners.

Legislation cited

Supreme Court Rules, 2013s. Order XLVII Rule 2

Subjects

review petitionlimitation periodSupreme Court Rulesinstitutional sanctityjudicial retirementGoa Foundation IIVedanta Ltd.Sesa Sterlite Ltd.civil procedure

Judgment

240 [2021]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 7 S.C.R. 240 [2021] 7 S.C.R.

A VEDANTA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS
M/S SESA STERLITE LTD.)
v.
THE GOA FOUNDATION & ORS.
B (Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 18447 of 2020)
JULY 09, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Supreme Court Rules, 2013: Or.XLVII r.2 – Review of a
C
judgment – Limitation – In accordance with r.2 of Or.XLVII, an
application for review of a judgment has to be filed within thirty
days of the date of the judgment or order that in sought to be
reviewed – No cogent grounds were furnished for the delay between
20 and 26 months by the two parties in filing their applications for
D review – Review petitions were filed after the judges who delivered
the judgments retired from the Court – Such practice is firmly
disapproved to preserve the institutional sanctity of the decision
making of the Court – Review petitioners were aware of the decision
– Review petitions dismissed on the ground of limitation alone –
However, in any event, no legitimate grounds for review of the
E
judgment were made out and the review petitions dismissed on merits
as well.
Dismissing the review petitions, the Court
HELD: The judges comprising the two-judge bench in
F GoaFoundation II, Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta,
retired from this Court on 30 December 2018 and 6 May 2020,
respectively. The State of Goa preferred its four review petitions
in the month of November 2019, after Justice Madan B Lokur’s
retirement, while Vedanta Limited preferred its four review
petitions in the month of August 2020, right after Justice Deepak
G Gupta’s retirement. Such practice must be firmly disapproved to
preserve the institutional sanctity of the decision making of this
Court. The review petitioners were aware of the decision of this
Court. The review petitions are dismissed on the ground of

H
240
VEDANTA LTD. v. THE GOA FOUNDATION 241

limitation alone. However, in any event, no legitimate grounds A
for review of the judgment in Goa Foundation II have been
made out and the review petitions are dismissed on merits as
well. [Paras 2, 3][242-C-E]
Goa foundation vs Sesa Sterlite Limited & Ors. (2018)
4 SCC 218:[2018] 2 SCR 361 – referred to B
Case Law Reference
[2018] 2 SCR 361 referred to Para 1
INHERENT JURISDICTION: Review Petition (Civil) Diary
No.18447 of 2020 C
In
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.32138 of 2015
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2018 of the Supreme
Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.32138 of 2015, Special
D
Leave Petition (Civil) No.32699 of 2015 and Writ Petition Nos.720 and
711 of 2015
With
Review Petition (C) Diary No.41515 of 2019 in SLP (C) No.32138
of 2015, Review Petition (C) Diary No.41517 of 2019 in Writ Petition E
(C) No.720 of 2015, Review Petition (C) Diary No.41543 of 2019 in
SLP (C) No.32699-32727 of 2015, Review Petition (C) Diary No.41545
of 2019 in Writ Petition (C) No.711 of 2015, Review Petition (C) Diary
No.18430 of 2020 in SLP (C) No.32707 of 2015, Review Petition (C)
Diary No.18435 of 2020 in Writ Petition (C) No.711 of 2015 and Review
Petition (C) Diary No.18438 of 2020 in Writ Petition (C) No.720 of 2015. F

By Circulation
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
G
1. The review petitions have been preferred by the State of Goa
(Diary No 41515 of 2019 and Diary No 41517 of 2019, both with a delay
of 650 days and Diary No 41453 of 2019 and Diary No 41545 of 2019,
both with a delay of 651 days) and by Vedanta Limited (formerly known

H
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.

A as M/s Sesa Sterlite Limited) (Diary No 18430 of 2020, Diary No 18435
of 2020, Diary No 18438 of 2020 and Diary No 18447 of 2020, all four
with a delay of 907 days) against the judgement of a two-judge bench of
this Court in Goa Foundation v.Sesa Sterlite Limited &Ors. 1,
pronounced on 7 February 2018.
B 2. In accordance with Rule 2 of Order XLVII of the Supreme
Court Rules, 2013, an application for review of a judgement has to be
filed within thirty days of the date of the judgement or order that is sought
to be reviewed. No cogent grounds have been furnished for the delay
between 20 and 26 months by the two parties in filing their applications
for review. The judges comprising the two-judge bench in Goa
C Foundation II, Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta, retired
from this Court on 30 December 2018 and 6 May 2020, respectively.
The State of Goa preferred its four review petitions in the month of
November 2019, after Justice Madan B Lokur’s retirement, while Vedanta
Limited preferred its four review petitions in the month of August 2020,
D right after Justice Deepak Gupta’s retirement. Such practise must be
firmly disapproved to preserve the institutional sanctity of the decision
making of this Court. The review petitioners were aware of the decision
of this Court.
3. Keeping in mind the above, we are inclined to dismiss these
E review petitions on the ground of limitation alone. However, in any event,
we also find that no legitimate grounds for review of the judgment in Goa
Foundation II have been made out, and dismiss these review petitions on
merits as well.
4. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.
F
Devika Gujral Review petitions dismissed.

G

1
H (2018) 4 SCC 218, hereinafter referred to as “Goa Foundation II”