38. Procedural rights are not based on sentimental concerns for the detenu. The procedural safeguards are not devised to coddle criminals or provide technical loopholes through which dangerous persons escape the consequences of their acts. They are basically society's assurances that the authorities will behave properly within rules distilled from long centuries of concrete experiences.
16. The importance of a lawyer to enable a person to properly defend himself has been elaborately explained by this Court in A.S. Mohammed Rafi v. State of T.N.[(2011) 1 SCC 688 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 509 : AIR 2011 SC 308] and in Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam [(2011) 4 SCC 729 : JT (2011) 2 SC 527] . As observed by Mr Justice Sutherland of the US Supreme Court in Powell v. Alabama [77 L Ed 158 : 287 US 45 (1932)] (US p. 69), "[e]ven the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law", and hence, without a lawyer he may be convicted though he is innocent.
Chittaranjan Das v. State of Orissa, (2011) 7 SCC 167 at page 170
14. We are of the opinion that in a case in which sanction sought for is refused by the competent authority, while the public servant is in service, he cannot be prosecuted later after retirement, notwithstanding the fact that no sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act is necessary after the retirement of the public servant. Any other view will render the protection illusory. Situation may be different when sanction is refused by the competent authority after the retirement of the public servant as in that case sanction is not at all necessary and any exercise in this regard would be action in futility.
G. Srinivas v. Govt. of A.P., (2005) 13 SCC 712 at page 718
20. An order passed by mistake and ignorance of the relevant facts indisputably can be reviewed, if inter alia, it is found that a fraud was practised or there was wilful suppression on the part of the appellant.
Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. v. Parenteral Drugs (India) (P) Ltd., (2001) 1 SCC 715 at page 719
6. Admittedly neither of the parties came to Court with a case of the nature as has been depicted above. While it is true that the observations of the Court as the one noticed above, are not as strictly warranted in the facts but one need not fail to appreciate that the law courts exist for the society and in the event of there being any social problem it would be well-within the domain of the law court to take such step or steps as they may deem fit and appropriate and this is so in spite of the fact that the lis between the parties does not warrant such a conclusion. But in the matter in issue by reason of the long lapse of time the whole exercise has become totally infructuous: Eleven years have passed and the State, however, has not taken any steps in terms thereof, prior to the obtaining the order of stay from this Court.
Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar, (2008) 9 SCC 54 at page 74
45. We must now deal with the question of locus standi. A special leave petition ordinarily would not have been entertained at the instance of the appellant. Validity of appointment or otherwise on the basis of a caste certificate granted by a committee is ordinarily a matter between the employer and the employee. This Court, however, when a question is raised, can take cognizance of a matter of such grave importance suo motu. It may not treat the special leave petition as a public interest litigation, but, as a public law litigation. It is, in a proceeding of that nature, permissible for the court to make a detailed enquiry with regard to the broader aspects of the matter although it was initiated at the instance of a person having a private interest. A deeper scrutiny can be made so as to enable the court to find out as to whether a party to a lis is guilty of commission of fraud on the Constitution. If such an enquiry subserves the greater public interest and has a far-reaching effect on the society, in our opinion, this Court will not shirk its responsibilities from doing so.
