Judicial Decision Cannot Offend Any Fundamental Right: Supreme Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Reconsideration Of An Earlier Judgment With Cost Of ₹ 1 Lakh

The Supreme Court, while dismissing the Writ Petition seeking to reconsider the decision of the Supreme Court in Sk. Mohd. Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai High Madrasah (2020), observed that the plea was wholly untenable and the Writ was not maintainable.

A Writ Petition was filed seeking to reconsider the decision of the Supreme Court in Sk. Mohd. Rafique case, wherein the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 was held to be constitutionally valid and held that the state's regulatory measures for appointing teachers in minority institutions do not violate Article 30 of the Constitution.

The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “Vasanta Sampat Dupare (supra) would not apply to a case of the present nature where this Court, in Sk. Mohd. Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai High Madrasah, upon threadbare consideration of the rival contentions, declared the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 to be constitutionally valid. Plea of the petitioners that the decision in Sk. Mohd. Rafique (supra) offends Article 30 rights is wholly untenable and barred in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 4 where it has authoritatively been held by a nine-Judge Constitution Bench that a judicial decision does not offend any Fundamental Right. In view of such binding decision, this writ petition is clearly not maintainable.”

Case Brief

A Writ was filed by the Managing Committee of Contai Rahamania High Madrasah and Sk. Mahammad Abdur Rahaman claiming the relief of reconsidering the correctness of the law laid down in judgment pronounced in Sk. Mohd. Rafique case.

Court’s Observation

At the outset, the Supreme Court noted that the Petitioners appeared to have inspiration from order of the Supreme Court in Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India (2025), in which it was held that the Article 32 of the Constitution of India empowers the Court in cases related to capital punishment to reopen the sentencing stage where the accused has been condemned to death penalty without ensuring that the guidelines mandated in Manoj and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) were followed.

The Court underscored, “The said decision in Vasanta Sampat Dupare (supra) leaves no manner of doubt that this Court entertained the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution on the ground of the same being a case of capital punishment and review/reconsideration of the earlier order upholding the conviction and death sentence had not been prayed; instead, what was assailed and prayed is the continuing validity of the sentence of death and reconsideration in the light of legislative and judicial developments, particularly with reference to the guidelines laid down in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh.”

The Supreme Court held that the case of Vasanta Sampat Dupare would not apply to the Writ Petition. “Plea of the petitioners that the decision in Sk. Mohd. Rafique (supra) offends Article 30 rights is wholly untenable and barred in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 4 where it has authoritatively been held by a nine-Judge Constitution Bench that a judicial decision does not offend any Fundamental Right. In view of such binding decision, this writ petition is clearly not maintainable”, the Bench observed.

Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the Writ Petition was an abuse of the process of the Court and dismissed it with costs of Rs.1,00,000.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: The Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah & Anr V. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate Sudhanshu S Choudhari, Advocates Abu Sohel, Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Ritu Reniwal (AOR).

Click here to read/download Order