2007 (4) TMI 695 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether how far and to what extent suppression of fact by way of non- disclosure would affect a person s right of access to justice?

Issues Involved:
1. Suppression of fact by non-disclosure and its effect on access to justice.
2. Termination of employment without complying with principles of natural justice.
3. Forum shopping and abuse of the process of court.
4. Discretionary jurisdiction of writ courts and the requirement of clean hands.
5. Materiality of facts suppressed in legal proceedings.
6. Availability and exhaustion of alternative remedies.
7. Res judicata and the possibility of filing a fresh writ petition.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Suppression of fact by non-disclosure and its effect on access to justice:
The core issue in this appeal is the extent to which suppression of fact by non-disclosure affects a person's right to access justice. The appellant did not disclose the pendency of a civil suit when filing a writ petition, which led to the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court on grounds of material concealment.

2. Termination of employment without complying with principles of natural justice:
The appellant's services were terminated allegedly without adhering to the principles of natural justice, despite her confirmation in service. This prompted her to seek legal recourse initially through a civil suit and subsequently through a writ petition.

3. Forum shopping and abuse of the process of court:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, noting that the appellant was engaging in forum shopping by filing a writ petition after failing to obtain an interim injunction in the civil suit. The court held that this amounted to an abuse of the process of court.

4. Discretionary jurisdiction of writ courts and the requirement of clean hands:
The court emphasized that while judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, it is also a discretionary remedy. The principle that a person invoking the court's discretionary jurisdiction must come with clean hands was reiterated. The court cited various precedents, including Moody v. Cox and Halsbury's Laws of England, to underline that equity demands propriety of conduct.

5. Materiality of facts suppressed in legal proceedings:
The court analyzed whether the suppressed fact (pendency of the civil suit) was material for the determination of the writ petition. It concluded that suppression of material facts, which are crucial for the determination of the lis, can lead to the denial of equitable relief. However, it also noted that if the suppressed fact is not material, the court may still exercise its jurisdiction.

6. Availability and exhaustion of alternative remedies:
The existence of an alternative remedy, such as a civil suit, does not bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226. The court referred to S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar, noting that the availability of an alternative remedy is a factor for the court's discretion but does not impinge on its jurisdiction.

7. Res judicata and the possibility of filing a fresh writ petition:
The court held that the dismissal of the writ petition on grounds of suppression of facts does not preclude the appellant from filing a fresh writ petition with full disclosure of facts. The judgment of the High Court in this context would not operate as res judicata, allowing the appellant to seek redressal afresh.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment but allowed the appellant the opportunity to file a fresh writ petition with all relevant facts disclosed. The appeal was dismissed with the observation that the new writ petition should be considered on its merits, emphasizing the appellant's human right to access justice and the basic feature of judicial review in the Constitution. No costs were awarded.

← Previous Next →