Judicial Orders Don't Affect Fundamental Rights: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Declaration Of Its Judgments As Per Incuriam

The Supreme Court has reiterated that judicial orders passed by the competent Courts/Tribunals do not affect the Fundamental Right of any citizen, and if a party is aggrieved by a judicial order, such an order has to be challenged according to the procedure prescribed by law.

The Court was hearing an Article 32 petition seeking orders to declare the decisions of coordinate benches of the Court in Pro Knits v. Board of Directors of Canara Bank (2024) and Shri Shri Swami Samarth Construction & Finance Solution v. NKGSB Coop. Bank Ltd.(2025) to have been passed per incuriam / sub silentio.

The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice SC Sharma observed, "This is an absolutely frivolous and thoroughly vexatious writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India...Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1967) is an authority for the proposition that judicial orders passed by the competent Courts/Tribunals do not affect fundamental right of any citizen; if a party is aggrieved by a judicial order, such order has to be challenged according to the procedure prescribed by law."

Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara appeared for the Petitioner.

The Court in Pro Knits (supra) observed that the directions or instructions issued by the Central Government under Section 9 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) and by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under Sections 21 and 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 have statutory force and are binding to all the Banking companies. The Court observed thus in a batch of civil appeals filed by the MSMEs registered under MSMED Act, challenging the common order of the Bombay High Court by which it dismissed the writ petitions and held that the Banks/Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) are not obliged to adopt the restructuring process as per the notification issued by the Ministry of MSMEs on its own without there being any application by the MSMEs.

Similarly, the Court in Shri Shri Swami Samarth Construction (supra) observed that the Notification dated May 29, 2015, containing the ‘Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises’ does not prohibit the lending bank/secured creditor from classifying the account of the defaulting MSME as NPA and from issuing demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act without identification of incipient stress in the account of the defaulting borrower (MSME).

The Court dismissed the present writ petition and held that, "We make it clear that the Registry shall not register any further writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking similar relief of declaring Pro Knits (supra) and Shri Shri Swami Samarth (supra) to have been passed per incuriam / sub silentio, without obtaining orders from the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India."

Cause Title: Maryama Josh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).113/2026]

Appearances:

Petitioners: Advocate on Record Chand Qureshi, Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, Advocate Maria Nedumpara, Advocate Hemali Suresh Kurne, Advocate Shameem Fayiz, Advocate Jeevan R. Patil, Advocate Rakesh Kumar, Advocate Abhishek Gurawa.

Click here to read/download the Order

the order