9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of writ petitions under Article 32 after dismissal under Article 226. 2. Application of the principle of res judicata to writ petitions under Article 32. 3. Discretion of the Supreme Court in granting relief under Article 32. 4. Comparison between remedies under Articles 226 and 32. 5. Impact of laches and alternative remedies on the maintainability of writ petitions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of writ petitions under Article 32 after dismissal under Article 226: The Supreme Court addressed whether a writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable after a similar petition under Article 226 has been dismissed by a High Court. The Court concluded that if a writ petition filed under Article 226 is dismissed on the merits, the decision is binding and creates a bar against a subsequent petition under Article 32 on the same facts and for the same reliefs. The Court emphasized that an original petition under Article 32 cannot substitute for an appeal against a High Court's decision under Article 226. 2. Application of the principle of res judicata to writ petitions under Article 32: The Court examined whether the principle of res judicata applies to writ petitions under Article 32. It held that the rule of res judicata, which is based on public policy and aims to ensure finality in litigation, is applicable to petitions under Article 32. The Court reasoned that binding decisions by courts of competent jurisdiction should not be reopened unless reversed or modified by appropriate procedures. The Court cited previous decisions, including Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha, to support the applicability of res judicata to Article 32 petitions. 3. Discretion of the Supreme Court in granting relief under Article 32: The Court discussed whether granting relief under Article 32 is discretionary. It referred to previous decisions suggesting that the issue of writs under Article 32 is discretionary, similar to Article 226. However, the Court clarified that once a petitioner establishes a case of illegal contravention of fundamental rights, they are ordinarily entitled to appropriate relief under Article 32. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting fundamental rights and the role of the Supreme Court as the guarantor of these rights. 4. Comparison between remedies under Articles 226 and 32: The Court compared the scope and nature of remedies under Articles 226 and 32. It noted that both articles provide for similar writs, orders, or directions to enforce fundamental rights. The jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 is concurrent with the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32. The Court rejected the argument that a High Court's decision under Article 226 cannot be treated as res judicata for a petition under Article 32, emphasizing that both remedies are aimed at protecting fundamental rights. 5. Impact of laches and alternative remedies on the maintainability of writ petitions: The Court addressed the impact of laches (delay) and the availability of alternative remedies on the maintainability of writ petitions. It held that if a High Court dismisses a writ petition under Article 226 due to laches or the availability of an alternative remedy, such dismissal does not create a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32. However, if the High Court's dismissal is on the merits, it constitutes a bar. The Court also noted that summary dismissals without speaking orders do not create a bar of res judicata. Judgment in Specific Petitions: - Petition Nos. 66 and 67 of 1956: Dismissed as barred by res judicata since the High Court dismissed the petitions on the merits. - Petition No. 8 of 1960: Not barred by res judicata as the previous petition was withdrawn without a decision on the merits. - Petition No. 77 of 1957: Further clarification needed on whether the High Court's dismissal was on the merits. - Petition No. 15 of 1957: Not barred by res judicata as the High Court's dismissal did not provide reasons. - Petition No. 5 of 1958: Dismissed as barred by res judicata since the High Court dismissed the petition on the merits. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the principle of res judicata applies to petitions under Article 32, barring subsequent petitions on the same facts and for the same reliefs if a High Court has dismissed a similar petition on the merits under Article 226. The Court emphasized the importance of finality in litigation and the role of the judiciary in upholding fundamental rights.
|
