Can the organiser obtain a writ of certiorari to quash the licence denial and FIR for a skill based puzzle contest in the Chandigarh High Court?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose a promoter of a nationwide puzzle‑solving competition, which awards a cash prize for the first participant to correctly decode a series of riddles, seeks to launch the event without obtaining a licence because the competition is based entirely on intellectual skill and not on chance.

The competition invites participants from across the country to register online by paying a modest entry fee. The prize pool totals two lakh rupees, and the organiser advertises the event through social media, emphasizing that success depends on analytical ability and knowledge of language patterns. A recently enacted Prize Regulation Act, however, defines a “prize competition” in broad terms that encompass any contest offering a monetary reward, irrespective of whether the outcome is determined by skill or luck. Under the Act, any competition promising a prize exceeding one thousand rupees must obtain a licence, the prize value is capped at one thousand rupees, and the number of entries is limited to two thousand per event. The organiser applies for a licence, is denied on the ground that the competition falls within the statutory definition, and receives a notice from the investigating agency indicating that proceeding without a licence will attract criminal prosecution under the Act.

The organiser, now the petitioner, files an FIR alleging that the authorities have unlawfully restrained his constitutional right to practice a lawful trade. The prosecution, represented by the state, alleges that the competition is a gambling‑type activity that falls outside the protection of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and therefore justifies the licensing and prize‑value restrictions. The central legal question that emerges is whether the statutory definition of “prize competition” can be interpreted to include skill‑based contests, and if so, whether the licensing requirement, prize‑value ceiling and entry‑limit provisions constitute a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6). A subsidiary issue is whether the offending provisions can be severed so that they continue to apply only to gambling‑type contests while being struck down as to skill‑based contests.

At the factual level, the organiser’s defence that the competition is purely a test of intellect does not settle the matter because the Act’s language is unqualified and the investigating agency relies on the literal definition. The mere assertion of skill does not automatically exempt the event from the statutory regime; the law must be examined for its constitutional validity. Consequently, an ordinary factual defence is insufficient. The petitioner must challenge the legislative classification itself and the reasonableness of the attendant restrictions, which are matters of constitutional law that cannot be resolved by a simple denial of the gambling allegation.

Given that the dispute concerns the validity of a statutory provision and its application to the petitioner’s activity, the appropriate procedural vehicle is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner approaches the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking a declaration that the sections imposing the licence requirement, the prize‑value ceiling and the entry‑limit are unconstitutional as applied to skill‑based competitions, and that those provisions be severed from the Act so that they continue to operate only against gambling‑type contests. A seasoned lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court drafts the petition, framing the relief as a quashing of the impugned provisions and an order directing the investigating agency to withdraw the FIR and any further action against the organiser.

The High Court has jurisdiction to entertain such a petition because the petitioner is aggrieved by a public authority’s action that directly affects his right to carry on a trade. The writ petition invokes the power of the court to issue a certiorari to examine the legality of the investigating agency’s order, and a mandamus directing the licensing authority to reconsider the application in light of the constitutional analysis. The petition also requests a declaration that the Act, insofar as it applies to skill‑based contests, is void for being an unreasonable restriction on the freedom to practice a profession, and that the severability doctrine be applied to preserve the provisions that target genuine gambling activities.

In preparing the case, the petitioner engages a team of lawyers in Chandigarh High Court who specialize in constitutional criminal law. They argue that the legislative intent behind the Act was to curb gambling, not to regulate intellectual competitions, and that the broad definition was a legislative overreach. They cite precedents where courts have held that activities requiring substantial skill fall within the ambit of Article 19(1)(g) and that any restriction must satisfy the test of reasonableness. They further contend that the licensing scheme, prize‑value ceiling and entry‑limit are not proportionate to the objective of preventing gambling, especially where the prize exceeds the statutory cap by a large margin without any element of chance.

The petition also raises the issue of procedural fairness. The organiser was not given an opportunity to be heard before the licence was denied, violating the principles of natural justice. Moreover, the FIR was lodged without a prior inquiry into whether the competition truly involved gambling, thereby breaching the requirement of a fair investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code. These procedural lapses strengthen the argument for quashing the FIR and the subsequent prosecution.

Should the Punjab and Haryana High Court find merit in the constitutional challenge, it can exercise its power to issue a writ of certiorari to set aside the licensing authority’s order, and a writ of mandamus to compel the authority to frame separate regulations for skill‑based contests. The court may also invoke the doctrine of severability, striking down the sections that impose the licence requirement and prize‑value ceiling as they apply to skill‑based competitions, while allowing the remainder of the Act to continue regulating gambling contests. This outcome would align with the principle that statutes should be interpreted, where possible, to preserve their valid portions.

If the High Court declines to grant the relief, the petitioner retains the option to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court under Article 32, but the immediate remedy lies in the writ jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The strategic choice to file a writ petition at this stage reflects the need for a swift, authoritative declaration that can halt the ongoing prosecution and protect the organiser’s constitutional rights.

In summary, the fictional scenario mirrors the legal contours of the analysed judgment: a broad statutory definition, a challenge to licensing and prize‑value restrictions, the applicability of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 19(6), and the relevance of severability. The procedural solution—filing a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court—emerges naturally from the need to obtain a constitutional declaration and to quash the criminal proceedings that arise from the statutory overreach.

Question: Can the broad statutory definition of “prize competition” be interpreted to exclude contests that are purely skill‑based, thereby relieving the organiser from the licensing requirement imposed by the Prize Regulation Act?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the organiser intends to run a nationwide puzzle‑solving contest where success depends entirely on intellectual ability, with a cash prize of two lakh rupees and an entry fee. The Prize Regulation Act defines a “prize competition” in unqualified terms, encompassing any contest that offers a monetary reward, regardless of the role of chance. The investigating agency has taken a literal approach, treating the organiser’s event as falling within the definition and consequently denying a licence. The legal problem, therefore, is whether the language of the definition can be read purposively to carve out a category for skill‑based contests, preserving the organiser’s constitutional right to practice a trade under Article 19(1)(g). A purposive construction would examine legislative intent, which, as indicated by the pre‑amble and parliamentary debates, was to curb gambling activities. If the court finds that the legislature deliberately aimed at gambling, it may read the definition as excluding contests where chance plays no part. Such an interpretation would render the licensing requirement inapplicable to the organiser, because the activity would no longer be a “prize competition” within the statutory scheme. Procedurally, the petitioner must raise this interpretation in the writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking a declaration that the licensing provision does not bind skill‑based events. The practical implication for the organiser is that, if the court adopts the purposive reading, the licence denial becomes legally untenable, and the investigating agency would be compelled to withdraw the FIR. Conversely, a rejection of the interpretation would leave the organiser subject to the licensing regime and potential criminal prosecution. A seasoned lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would likely argue that the statutory language, while broad, must be read in light of the constitutional guarantee of freedom to carry on a trade, and that the organiser’s contest falls squarely within that protected domain.

Question: Do the licensing requirement, the prize‑value ceiling, and the entry‑limit imposed by the Act constitute a reasonable restriction on the organiser’s Article 19(1)(g) right when the competition is purely skill‑based?

Answer: The organiser’s activity is characterised by a cash prize of two lakh rupees, an entry fee, and an unrestricted number of participants, all of which exceed the statutory caps of one thousand rupees and two thousand entries. The legal issue is whether these restrictions satisfy the reasonableness test under Article 19(6), which permits the State to impose reasonable limits on the exercise of the right to practice a trade. Reasonableness requires a rational nexus between the restriction and the objective of preventing gambling, as well as proportionality. In this case, the objective is to curb gambling, yet the organiser’s contest contains no element of chance; success is determined solely by intellectual skill. The licensing requirement, prize‑value ceiling, and entry‑limit therefore appear over‑broad, affecting a legitimate business that does not further the anti‑gambling goal. The court will assess whether the restrictions are tailored to the problem they seek to address. If the court concludes that the restrictions are disproportionate, they will be deemed unconstitutional as applied to skill‑based contests. Procedurally, the petitioner must articulate this argument in the writ petition, requesting a declaration that the licensing, prize‑value, and entry provisions are invalid insofar as they affect skill‑based competitions. The practical implication for the organiser is that a successful challenge would remove the statutory ceiling, allowing the prize and entry numbers to remain as originally planned, and would also nullify any pending criminal proceedings. For the state, an adverse finding would require amendment of the Act to introduce a separate regime for skill‑based contests, or to narrow the scope of the existing provisions. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would likely emphasise precedents where courts have struck down similar restrictions as unreasonable, reinforcing the organiser’s claim to an unrestricted trade.

Question: Is it possible for the court to sever the provisions of the Prize Regulation Act so that they continue to regulate gambling‑type contests while being struck down as they apply to skill‑based competitions?

Answer: The statutory scheme imposes a licensing mandate, a prize‑value ceiling, and an entry‑limit on all “prize competitions”. The organiser contends that these provisions should not apply to his skill‑based puzzle contest, while the State argues that the provisions are integral to the Act’s purpose of curbing gambling. The legal question is whether the provisions are severable – that is, whether the legislature would have enacted the remaining parts of the Act if it had known that the restrictions would be invalid for skill‑based contests. The doctrine of severability permits a court to excise the offending portions of a statute, preserving the rest, provided the legislature’s intent to have a functional scheme remains evident. In the present facts, the Act’s primary objective, as reflected in its pre‑amble and legislative history, is to regulate gambling activities. The licensing, prize‑value, and entry restrictions are tailored to that objective. If the court determines that the provisions, when applied to skill‑based contests, are unconstitutional, it may still uphold them for gambling contests, thereby preserving the Act’s core purpose. The procedural consequence is that the writ petition would seek a declaration of severability, asking the Punjab and Haryana High Court to strike down the provisions only to the extent they affect skill‑based events. Practically, a severance order would mean that the organiser is freed from the licensing and monetary caps, while the State retains the power to regulate genuine gambling contests under the same Act. The investigating agency would be barred from pursuing criminal action against the organiser, but could continue enforcement against gambling operators. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would argue that the legislative intent was not to create a blanket prohibition on all prize contests, and that severability respects the balance between constitutional freedoms and the State’s regulatory objectives.

Question: What specific writ relief can the organiser obtain from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and what are the likely outcomes if the petition is granted or dismissed?

Answer: The organiser has filed a writ petition under Article 226, alleging that the licensing denial, the FIR, and the statutory restrictions infringe his constitutional right to practice a trade. The relief sought includes a declaration that the licensing requirement, prize‑value ceiling, and entry‑limit are unconstitutional as applied to skill‑based contests, a quashing of the FIR, and a mandamus directing the licensing authority to reconsider the application in light of the constitutional analysis. If the Punjab and Haryana High Court grants the relief, it will issue a certiorari to set aside the licensing authority’s order, a mandamus compelling the authority to grant a licence or to withdraw the denial, and a declaration that the impugned provisions are severable and inapplicable to skill‑based competitions. The practical effect would be an immediate halt to the criminal prosecution, allowing the organiser to conduct the contest with the original prize and entry structure. The investigating agency would be required to close the FIR, and any custodial or punitive measures would be reversed. Conversely, if the court dismisses the petition, the organiser remains subject to the licensing denial, the FIR stays alive, and the State may proceed with prosecution for contravention of the Act. The organiser would then need to consider an appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 32, incurring additional costs and delays. The decision also signals to other promoters whether skill‑based contests can operate without licences, influencing the broader regulatory environment. A seasoned lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would advise the organiser to prepare for both scenarios, ensuring that evidence of the contest’s purely skill‑based nature is meticulously documented, and that any procedural lapses by the investigating agency are highlighted to strengthen the writ petition.

Question: Why does the writ petition seeking declaration of unconstitutionality and quashing of the FIR have to be presented before the Punjab and Haryana High Court rather than a subordinate magistrate or tribunal?

Answer: The petitioner’s grievance arises from a public authority’s exercise of power that directly curtails a fundamental right to practice a trade, an act that is amenable only to the extraordinary jurisdiction of a High Court under the constitutional writ power. The licensing authority’s denial of a licence and the investigating agency’s issuance of an FIR constitute administrative actions that affect the organiser’s ability to carry on his business and expose him to criminal prosecution. Such actions are not merely questions of fact that a magistrate can resolve; they involve the interpretation of a statutory definition, the assessment of reasonableness of a restriction on Article 19(1)(g), and the application of the doctrine of severability, all of which are matters of law that the High Court is empowered to examine. Moreover, the High Court has the authority to issue certiorari to set aside an illegal order, mandamus to compel a statutory duty, and declaration to state the constitutional status of a provision. A subordinate court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain a writ of certiorari or mandamus and cannot pronounce on the validity of a legislative provision. By filing the petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the petitioner ensures that the matter is heard by a court that can entertain a comprehensive constitutional challenge, provide an immediate stay on the prosecution, and direct the licensing authority to reconsider its decision in accordance with constitutional principles. Engaging a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court is essential because such counsel can draft the petition to invoke the appropriate writs, cite precedent on the scope of Article 19, and structure the relief to include both quashing of the FIR and a declaration of unconstitutionality, thereby maximizing the chance of a decisive and enforceable outcome.

Question: In what way does a purely factual defence that the competition is based on skill fail to secure relief at the stage of filing a writ petition?

Answer: A factual defence that the organiser’s event is purely skill‑based addresses only the substantive allegation of gambling, but it does not confront the core legal issue that the High Court must resolve: whether the statutory definition of “prize competition” lawfully encompasses skill‑based contests and whether the licensing and prize‑value restrictions satisfy the constitutional test of reasonableness. The writ stage is not a trial of evidence; it is a jurisdictional review of the legality of the administrative action. The investigating agency has already acted on the basis of the literal wording of the statute, and the licensing authority has denied the licence without a hearing. Consequently, the court’s focus is on procedural regularity, statutory interpretation, and constitutional validity, not on proving the skill element through expert testimony. Even if the organiser can demonstrate that the riddles require intellectual ability, the court must still examine whether the legislature intended to regulate such contests and whether the impugned provisions are a proportionate means to achieve the objective of curbing gambling. Moreover, the doctrine of natural justice requires that the petitioner be heard before a licence is denied; a factual defence does not cure that procedural defect. Therefore, the petition must be framed to challenge the legal classification and the reasonableness of the restriction, seeking a declaration that the provisions are unconstitutional as applied to skill‑based competitions. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can help articulate this constitutional argument, ensure that the petition emphasizes the procedural infirmities, and request appropriate writs that go beyond a simple factual denial of gambling allegations.

Question: What procedural steps must the petitioner follow to obtain a quashing of the FIR and the licence denial, and how does engaging a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court facilitate these steps?

Answer: The first step is to prepare a writ petition under Article 226 that specifically requests a certiorari to set aside the licensing authority’s order and a mandamus to compel the investigating agency to withdraw the FIR. The petition must contain a concise statement of facts, the legal grounds for relief, and the precise relief sought, including a declaration that the provisions imposing the licence requirement and prize‑value ceiling are unconstitutional as applied to skill‑based contests. Next, the petitioner must file the petition in the registry of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, pay the requisite court fee, and serve copies on the licensing authority, the investigating agency, and the state government. After filing, the court will issue notices to the respondents, who will file their written statements. The petitioner must then be prepared to argue that the denial of a licence was made without a hearing, violating natural justice, and that the FIR was lodged without a prior inquiry, breaching procedural safeguards. Throughout this process, a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court is indispensable because such counsel understands the High Court’s procedural rules, can draft the petition to meet the precise formatting requirements, and can anticipate the arguments of the state. The lawyer will also manage the service of notices, file any interim applications for a stay of prosecution, and represent the petitioner during the hearing, presenting case law on the unconstitutionality of over‑broad statutory definitions and the doctrine of severability. By navigating the procedural labyrinth efficiently, the lawyer ensures that the petition does not get dismissed on technical grounds and that the court’s jurisdiction to grant the sought relief is preserved.

Question: Under what circumstances can the petitioner seek a revision or appeal of an adverse order from the licensing authority, and what role do lawyers in Chandigarh High Court play in that process?

Answer: If the licensing authority issues an order refusing the licence after a hearing, or if the High Court dismisses the writ petition on merits, the petitioner may approach the same High Court under its revisionary jurisdiction to challenge the legality of the order, alleging that the authority acted beyond its powers or ignored procedural fairness. Alternatively, if the High Court’s decision is adverse, the petitioner can file an appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 32, but the immediate remedy is a revision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In either scenario, the petitioner must demonstrate that the order is arbitrary, that the authority failed to consider the skill‑based nature of the competition, or that the restriction imposed is unreasonable. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court, who are familiar with the procedural nuances of revision and appellate practice, can assist in drafting a comprehensive revision petition that highlights the procedural lapses, the lack of a hearing, and the constitutional infirmities of the impugned provision. They can also prepare an appeal memorandum that succinctly frames the constitutional questions for the Supreme Court, ensuring that the record is complete and that the arguments are presented in a manner consistent with High Court practice. By leveraging the expertise of lawyers in Chandigarh High Court, the petitioner can navigate the procedural thresholds for revision, avoid pitfalls such as premature filing or inadequate pleading, and increase the likelihood that the higher forum will entertain the challenge and possibly set aside the adverse order.

Question: How does the doctrine of severability influence the relief sought in the writ petition, and why must the petitioner frame the petition to address both constitutional and procedural grounds?

Answer: The doctrine of severability allows a court to strike down only those portions of a statute that are unconstitutional while preserving the remainder that can function independently. In the present case, the petitioner seeks to have the licensing requirement, prize‑value ceiling, and entry‑limit provisions declared void only to the extent that they apply to skill‑based competitions, leaving them intact for gambling‑type contests. By invoking severability, the petitioner aims to avoid a total invalidation of the entire regulatory scheme, which could be viewed as excessive and contrary to legislative intent. To succeed, the petition must demonstrate that the legislature would have enacted the remaining provisions even if it had known that they would be invalid for skill‑based contests, and that the provisions are capable of operating independently. Simultaneously, the petition must raise procedural grounds such as denial of a hearing, violation of natural justice, and the improper issuance of an FIR without prior inquiry. Addressing both constitutional and procedural issues creates a robust case that the High Court can entertain on multiple fronts: it can quash the FIR on procedural defect, set aside the licence denial for lack of due process, and declare the relevant statutory provisions unconstitutional as applied to the petitioner’s activity. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court can skillfully weave these arguments together, ensuring that the petition meets the court’s requirement for a comprehensive relief claim and maximizes the chance of obtaining a partial severance rather than a blanket dismissal.

Question: Does the failure to provide a pre‑licensing hearing constitute a breach of natural justice that can be raised to quash the licence denial and the subsequent FIR?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the organiser applied for a licence under the Prize Regulation Act and received a written refusal that relied solely on the literal wording of the statute. No notice was issued inviting the organiser to present evidence or arguments before the licensing authority made its determination. Under the principles of natural justice a person who is adversely affected by an administrative decision must be given an opportunity to be heard, and the absence of such an opportunity is a jurisdictional flaw that can render the decision void. In the present case the investigating agency has proceeded to issue a notice of prosecution on the basis of that same void decision, thereby compounding the procedural defect. A writ petition under Article 226 can therefore seek a certiorari to set aside the licence denial and a mandamus directing the authority to conduct a fair hearing. The practical implication for the accused is that, if the High Court accepts the breach of natural justice, the FIR may be struck down as illegal because it was predicated on an unlawful administrative act. For the complainant, who is the state, the relief would mean that the prosecution must restart the process after a proper hearing, which could delay or even prevent the case if the hearing results in a licence being granted. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would examine the licence order, the statutory provisions governing the licensing procedure, and any internal rules that prescribe a hearing. The counsel would also gather correspondence showing the organiser’s request for a hearing and the authority’s refusal. If the court finds the procedural lapse fatal, it may order the investigating agency to withdraw the FIR and to reopen the licensing process in compliance with natural justice, thereby protecting the organiser’s constitutional right to practice his trade while preserving the state’s interest in regulating gambling activities.

Question: How can the organiser demonstrate that the competition is a skill based activity and not a gambling venture for the purpose of invoking Article 19 protection?

Answer: The organiser must produce documentary and testimonial evidence that the outcome of the contest depends exclusively on intellectual ability, knowledge of language patterns and logical deduction, with no element of chance. This can include the written riddles, the scoring rubric, expert opinions from educators or puzzle designers, and statistical data showing that participants who possess higher analytical skills consistently succeed. The legal problem is to persuade the court that the activity falls within the ambit of the freedom to practice any trade, business or profession protected by Article 19, which does not extend to gambling. If the High Court is convinced, the licensing and prize restrictions would be subject to the reasonableness test of Article 19(6). For the accused, a successful demonstration would mean that the statutory provisions cannot be applied to his event, thereby nullifying the basis of the FIR. For the prosecution, it would require a reassessment of whether the competition truly involves chance, potentially leading to dismissal of the case. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court would scrutinise the competition’s rules, the entry fee structure, and any promotional material that emphasizes skill over luck. They would also prepare cross‑examination of any witnesses the state may call to assert the presence of chance. The practical implication is that a clear evidentiary record of a skill based contest strengthens the argument for constitutional protection and may compel the court to strike down the licence requirement as unreasonable, while also supporting a request for quashing the FIR on the ground that the alleged offence does not exist.

Question: What are the prospects and procedural steps for seeking severability of the licence, prize ceiling and entry limit provisions so that they continue to apply only to gambling contests?

Answer: The organiser can argue that the statutory provisions are over‑broad and that Parliament intended them to target gambling activities, not skill based competitions. The legal issue is whether the offending clauses can be severed without destroying the legislative scheme. The High Court will apply the test of legislative intent, examining the preamble, parliamentary debates and the purpose of the Act. If the court finds that the legislature would have enacted the licensing regime even if it had known the provisions would be invalid for skill based contests, it may strike down only the portions that affect the organiser while preserving them for gambling. The procedural route is to file a writ petition seeking a declaration of severability and an order directing the licensing authority to apply the provisions only to gambling contests. For the accused, a successful severability claim would remove the immediate threat of prosecution while allowing the state to continue regulating genuine gambling, thereby balancing public policy and constitutional rights. For the prosecution, it would limit the scope of the investigation to activities that involve chance. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would gather legislative history, expert testimony on the purpose of the Act, and comparative jurisprudence on severability. The practical implication is that the court may issue a detailed judgment carving out the skill based category, thereby providing a clear legal framework for future organisers and reducing the risk of arbitrary enforcement.

Question: If the High Court declines to grant relief, what are the viable appellate or revisionary remedies and the strategic considerations for pursuing them?

Answer: Should the Punjab and Haryana High Court refuse to quash the licence denial, the FIR or the constitutional challenge, the organiser retains the right to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 32 for a direct constitutional remedy, or to file a revision petition in the same High Court on grounds of jurisdictional error. The legal problem becomes whether the High Court erred in interpreting the statutory definition or in applying the reasonableness test. An appeal to the Supreme Court would focus on the fundamental right to practice a trade and the proportionality of the licensing scheme, while a revision would argue that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by not considering the procedural defects. For the accused, an appeal offers a chance to obtain a definitive declaration of unconstitutionality, which would have nationwide effect and protect future skill based competitions. For the state, it provides an opportunity to defend the regulatory scheme and to argue that the High Court’s decision is consistent with legislative intent. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court would prepare a comprehensive record of the High Court judgment, highlight any misapplication of legal principles, and draft a concise petition emphasizing the constitutional stakes. Strategic considerations include the time and cost of a Supreme Court petition, the likelihood of success based on precedent, and the impact of a prolonged litigation on the organiser’s business. If the Supreme Court grants relief, it would not only quash the FIR but also set a binding precedent, whereas a successful revision could result in a fresh hearing in the High Court, potentially correcting the earlier error without escalating to the apex court.