Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 880038616
The distinction between appellate powers and revisional powers under Indian law is fundamental to understanding judicial review mechanisms. Here is a detailed explanation as per Indian legal principles:
Appellate Powers
Nature and Scope: Appellate power is the authority of a higher court to review, re-examine, and potentially overturn or modify the decision of a lower court. It is a statutory and substantive right; parties have a right to appeal if the statute provides for it.
Extent of Review: An appellate court can reconsider both questions of fact and law. This means it can reappreciate evidence, review the entire record, and substitute its own findings for those of the lower court.
Continuation of Proceedings: An appeal is considered a continuation of the original proceedings. The appellate authority can conduct a full rehearing, and the entire case is open for review.
Binding Nature: The decision of an appellate court is generally final and binding on the parties, subject to further appeal if provided by law.
Initiation: An appeal must be filed by an aggrieved party within the prescribed time limit; it is not initiated by the court on its own motion.
Revisional Powers
Nature and Scope: Revisional power is discretionary and generally exercised by higher courts (such as High Courts) to ensure that lower courts have acted within their jurisdiction and followed correct procedures.
Extent of Review: The scope is limited—the revisional court does not reappreciate evidence or re-examine facts. Its focus is on the legality, propriety, or regularity of proceedings and correcting jurisdictional errors, procedural irregularities, or manifest injustice.
Not a Continuation: Revision is not a continuation of the original proceedings. The revisional authority does not conduct a fresh hearing on merits but only examines whether the lower court acted within its legal bounds.
Discretionary and Supervisory: The right to seek revision is not a statutory right of the parties but a discretionary power of the court, which may act suo moto (on its own motion) or on application.
Limited Intervention: Revisional jurisdiction is invoked only in exceptional cases—for example, where there is a jurisdictional error, perversity, or procedural irregularity. The court intervenes only when there are compelling reasons of paramount significance.
No Reappreciation of Evidence: Unlike an appellate court, a revisional court cannot reassess or reappreciate evidence unless expressly provided by statute.
Key Differences (Comparison Table)
Aspect Appellate Powers Revisional Powers
Nature Statutory right; continuation of original proceedings Discretionary; supervisory jurisdiction
Scope Review of facts and law; can reappreciate evidence Limited to legality, propriety, and jurisdictional errors
Who initiates Aggrieved party files appeal Court may act suo moto or on application
Extent of review Full rehearing possible No fresh hearing; no reappreciation of evidence
Outcome Can confirm, modify, or reverse lower court’s decision Can set aside or correct orders for jurisdictional errors
Binding nature Generally final, subject to further appeal Not final; can be reviewed again if new facts arise
Judicial Pronouncements
The Supreme Court and various High Courts have clarified that appellate jurisdiction involves full reconsideration of the case, while revisional jurisdiction is limited to ensuring that lower court acted within its legal and procedural bounds.
Revisional powers are often compared to the superintendence powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, focusing on keeping subordinate courts within their jurisdiction.
In summary, appellate powers allow a higher court to fully re-examine a case on facts and law, while revisional powers are limited to correcting jurisdictional or procedural errors without reappreciating evidence or facts
