Writ petition maintainable on the ground that earlier judgment does not lay down the correct law-though the concept of finality of judgment has to be preserved, at the same time, the principle of ex debito justitiae cannot be given a go-bye. If the Court finds that the earlier judgment does not lay down a correct position of law, it is always permissible for this Court to reconsider the same and if necessary, to refer it to a larger Bench.
This Court has observed that though Judges of the highest court do their best, yet situations may arise, in the rarest of the rare cases, which would require reconsideration of a final judgment to set right miscarriage of justice complained of. It has been held that in such a case it would not only be proper but also obligatory both legally and morally to rectify the error. This Court further held that to prevent abuse of its process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice, the Court may reconsider its judgments in exercise of its inherent power.
It could thus be seen that the principle of ex debito justitiae has been emphasized. This Court held that no man should suffer because of the mistake of the court. In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jayantilal N. Mistry, the RBI is entitled to issue directions to the petitioners/Banks to disclose information even with regard to the individual customers of the Bank. In effect, it may adversely affect the individuals’ fundamental right to privacy. The only remedy available to the petitioners would be to approach this Court by way of writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for protection of the fundamental rights of their customers, who are citizens of India.
It could thus be seen that this court has held that when a question of fact has reached finality inter se between the parties, it cannot be reopened in a collateral proceeding. However, it has been observed that an issue of law can be overruled later on. Para 28
[HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Union of India, (2023) 5 SCC 627]