1998 JTR(SC) 184
1998 AIR(SC) 1219 ; 1998 AIR(SCW) 1057 ; 1998 1 JT 511 ; 1998 1 Scale 485 ; 1998 3 SCC 56 ; 1998 1 SCR 717 ; 1999 1 UJ 410 ; 1998 1 UPLBEC 754 ; 1998 KHC 3609 ; 1998 2 Supreme 106
1998(2) Supreme 106
Supreme Court of India
M.M. Punchhi,CJI, B.N. Kirpal, M. Srinivasan, JJ.
P. Ashokan -Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Anr. -Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No... of 1997
(Dairy No. 20068 of 1997)
Decided on 6-2-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Manoj Swarup, Ms.Lalita Kohli, Ms. M. Swarup, Advocates for M/s. Manoj Swarup & Co., Advocates.
Important Point
Where the challenge is to the correctness of a decision on merits after it has become final, there can be no question of invoking Article 32 of the Constitution to claim reconsideration of the decision on the basis of its effect in accordance with law.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.32
(A) The petition invokes Article 32 of the Constitution to seek reconsideration of a final decision on merits. The referred provision empowers the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights, but it does not provide a mechanism to re-appeal or re-examine substantive merits of a concluded decision. The Bench relied on prior authority holding that challenges framed postadjudication on the effect of a final order are not maintainable under Article 32, as the remedy is neither a revisory nor an appellate forum.
(B) The core legal principles are that Article 32 is not a substitute for an appeal on merits, and where a threejudge Bench has already ruled on the finality of such challenges, resorting to Article 32 in identical context is misconceived. The Court must decline jurisdiction when the grievance essentially contests the correctness of a nonappealable, final order.
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed invoking Article 32 challenging a decision on merits after it had become final.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no merit in the petition and concluded it was not maintainable under Article 32, aligning with prior threejudge Bench precedent.
Issues:
Whether an attack on the correctness of a final decision on merits can be entertained under Article 32 after the decision has become final.
Ratio Decidendi:
Article 32 cannot be invoked to seek reconsideration of the merits of a final decision; such petitions are barred as they amount to an indirect appeal, which the remedy does not contemplate.
Result:
The writ petition is dismissed.
(A) The petition invokes Article 32 of the Constitution to seek reconsideration of a final decision on merits. The referred provision empowers the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights, but it does not provide a mechanism to re-appeal or re-examine substantive merits of a concluded decision. The Bench relied on prior authority holding that challenges framed postadjudication on the effect of a final order are not maintainable under Article 32, as the remedy is neither a revisory nor an appellate forum.
(B) The core legal principles are that Article 32 is not a substitute for an appeal on merits, and where a threejudge Bench has already ruled on the finality of such challenges, resorting to Article 32 in identical context is misconceived. The Court must decline jurisdiction when the grievance essentially contests the correctness of a nonappealable, final order.
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed invoking Article 32 challenging a decision on merits after it had become final.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no merit in the petition and concluded it was not maintainable under Article 32, aligning with prior threejudge Bench precedent.
Issues:
Whether an attack on the correctness of a final decision on merits can be entertained under Article 32 after the decision has become final.
Ratio Decidendi:
Article 32 cannot be invoked to seek reconsideration of the merits of a final decision; such petitions are barred as they amount to an indirect appeal, which the remedy does not contemplate.
Result:
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order
On merits, we find no case to entertain this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Besides a three Judge Bench decision of this Court, authored by J.S. Verma, J. (as Hon’ble the Ex-Chief Justice then was) in Khoday distilleries Limited & Anr. v. The Registrar General, Supreme Court of India1, has ruled as follows:
“In a case like the present, where in substance the challenge is to the correctness of a decision on merits after it has become final, there can be no question of invoking Article 32 of the Constitution to claim reconsideration of the decision on the basis of its effect in accordance with law. Frequent resort to the decision in Antulay in such situations is wholly misconceived and impels us to emphasise this fact.”
2. We are in agreement with such view.
3. The writ petition is dismissed.
Writ Petition dismissed.
*********
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
P. Ashokan v. Union of India, 1998(2) Supreme 106 : AIR 1998 SC 1219 : (1998) 3 SCC 56 : JT 1998(1) SC 511 : 1998(10 Scale 485 : 1998(II) AD (SC) 259
00027