Any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law is a perverse order, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi vs Harish Ambalal Choksi [2024 INSC 910].
A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. Perverse can be defined as “turned the wrong way”; not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct, etc.
The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English defines perverse as showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable, or unreasonable.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English defines perverse as deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable.
New Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language defines perverse as purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant.
Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases states that a perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence.
In short, in a perverse order the wrong finding should stem out on a complete misreading of evidence or it should be based only on conjectures and surmises.
The safest approach on perversity is the classic approach on the reasonable man’s inference on the facts. To him, if the conclusion on the facts in evidence made by the court below is possible, there is no perversity. If not, the finding is perverse.
However inadequacy of evidence or a different reading of evidence is not perversity, as it is stated in Damodar Lal v Sohan Devi and others [(2016) 3 SCC 78)].
