Supreme Court’s Decision At Stage Of SLP Or Post Grant Of Leave Cannot Be Assailed Directly Or Collaterally Under Article 32: Apex Court
The Supreme Court elucidated that the Judgment and Order of the Apex Court passed under Article 136 of the Constitution, is not amenable to judicial review under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court reiterated that its decision at the stage of Special Leave Petition (SLP) or post grant of leave, cannot be assailed directly or collaterally under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The Court reiterated thus in a Writ Petition filed by three retired officers of the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Limited under Article 32, who were aggrieved by denial of pensionary benefits to them in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees (Pension, Family Pension, Commutation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme, 1999 discontinued vide a notification.
The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “… law is well settled that a decision rendered by this Court, be it at the stage of special leave petition or post grant of leave while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, cannot be assailed directly or collaterally under Article 32. Remedy of an aggrieved litigant is to file for review. If the grievance persists even thereafter, he may invoke the curative jurisdiction subject to compliance of the requirements of such jurisdiction. But certainly it is not open for him to file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking the same relief.”
The Bench elucidated that the Judgment and Order of the Apex Court passed under Article 136 of the Constitution, is not amenable to judicial review under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan appeared on behalf of the Petitioners while Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioners sought a direction to the Respondents for payment of pension to them upon their superannuation in terms of the 1999 scheme at par with similarly situated employees who had retired prior to December 2, 2004, by counting their pensionable service from the date of joining till the date of their superannuation. The issue was earlier raised by a group of Petitioners before the Himachal Pradesh High Court via Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The High Court had allowed the said Petitions by directing the State to provide pension to the retired employees of the Corporation in terms of the scheme. However, this decision was reversed by a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. Thereafter, the Writ Petition was filed before the Supreme Court seeking the same relief. The Court had issued a notice vide an Order in the year 2018 and in its Order, the two-Judge Bench after observing that since correctness of the Judgment was questioned, requested the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to place the matter before a three-Judge Bench. Resultantly, the case was placed before the three-Judge Bench and heard accordingly.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, said, “It is not open for the petitioners to once again seek the same reliefs as was sought in the earlier round of litigation which were negatived by this Court. High Court had allowed the claim of the employees (petitioners of the previous round and similarly situated employees like the present petitioners).”
The Court noted that when the Apex Court had set aside the Judgment of the High Court, it is evident that the claim of not only those Petitioners but similarly situated employees (like the present Petitioners) were also negatived and, therefore, there cannot be any challenge either directly or collaterally to the decision of the Supreme Court in a proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution.
“This Court in Omprakash Verma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh10 reiterated the well-settled principle that a judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be collaterally challenged on the ground that certain points had not been considered”, it further noted.
The Court, therefore, held that the Writ Petition is thoroughly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. However, before parting with the record, the Court emphasised and reiterated the principle of finality of an adjudication process.
“Finality of a lis is a core facet of a sound judicial system. Litigation which had concluded or had reached finality cannot be reopened. A litigant who is aggrieved by a decision rendered by this Court in a special leave petition or in a civil appeal arising therefrom can seek its review by invoking the review jurisdiction and thereafter through a curative petition. But such a decision cannot be assailed in a writ proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. If this is permitted, then there will be no finality and no end to litigation. There will be chaos in the administration of justice”, it also added.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Writ Petition and refrained from imposing any cost considering the fact that the Petitioners were retired employees.
Cause Title- Satish Chander Sharma & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 491)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, AOR Anand Varma, Advocates Adyasha Nanda, and Aditi Gupta.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, AORs Nishant Kumar, Gopal Prasad, Advocates Anubhav Sharma, and Shalya Agarwal.
