Daryao and Others v. State of U.P. and Others
"The rule of res judicata, founded on public policy, applies to petitions under Article 32: a High Court's decision on the merits of an Article 226 petition binds the parties and bars a fresh Article 32 petition on the same facts, but a dismissal on laches, on the availability of an alternative remedy, or in limine without reasons does not."
Issues Before the Court
- (i)
Whether a High Court's dismissal of a writ petition under Article 226, after a hearing on the merits, bars a petition under Article 32 in the Supreme Court on the same facts and for the same relief?
- (ii)
Whether the result is different where the High Court dismissed the petition on the ground of laches or of an alternative remedy, or in limine without a speaking order, or where the petition was withdrawn?
Law & Rules Applicable
- (i)
Constitution of India, Article 32 (the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights) and Article 226 (writ jurisdiction of the High Courts).
- (ii)
The rule of res judicata, a rule of public policy reflected in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: a matter finally decided between the parties by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be reopened between them.
Application to Facts & Circumstances
The petitioners had been dispossessed of land following a decision of the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh. They challenged it in the Allahabad High Court under Article 226; their petitions were dismissed, and they did not appeal to the Supreme Court. They then filed petitions under Article 32 on the same facts and for the same relief. Several similar petitions were heard together by a Constitution Bench.
The Court accepted that the right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right. But the rule of res judicata rests on public policy: the binding character of the judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction is part of the rule of law, and litigation must come to an end. Those considerations apply to constitutional remedies as well.
Accordingly, if a writ petition under Article 226 is considered on the merits as a contested matter and dismissed, the decision binds the parties unless it is modified or reversed in appeal or other appropriate proceedings, and it bars a fresh petition under Article 32 on the same facts and for the same relief.
The bar depends on a decision on the merits. A dismissal on the ground of laches, or because an alternative remedy is available, does not bar a later petition under Article 32; nor does a dismissal in limine without a speaking order, or the withdrawal of the earlier petition. Applying these principles, the petitions that the High Court had decided on the merits failed, and the others were directed to be heard.
Conclusion & Ruling
- (i)
Petitions barred by earlier High Court decisions on the merits were dismissed; those in which the earlier petition had been withdrawn or dismissed without reasons were set down for hearing.
- (ii)
A High Court's decision on the merits of an Article 226 petition operates as res judicata in a later Article 32 petition on the same facts, unless it is set aside in appeal.
- (iii)
A dismissal on the ground of laches or of an alternative remedy, a withdrawal, or a dismissal in limine without a speaking order does not create that bar.