Writ Petition Under Article 32 Cannot Be Used To Challenge Our Own Judgments : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (April 16) ruled that Article 32 of the Constitution, being a remedial provision for the enforcement of fundamental rights, cannot be invoked as a means to challenge the Court's own judgment.

The Court noted that allowing writ petitions under Article 32 to challenge final judgments would undermine judicial hierarchy and lead to endless litigation, undermining the principle of res judicata.

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, the Court said.

“Thus, 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 court added.

The bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the case where the Petitioners, the retired employees were denied pensionary benefits and sought to challenge the Court's earlier ruling in the case of State of H.P. Vs. Rajesh Chander Sood, (2016) 10 SCC 77 which upheld the repeal of a pension scheme curtailing additional benefits under the pension scheme for the petitioners by creating a cut-off dates.

The petitioners had assailed the correctness of Rajesh Chander Sood's judgment in the Writ Proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution, contending that Rajesh Chander Sood (2016) was per incuriam as it ignored binding precedents like D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, 1983, which prohibits arbitrary cut-off dates for pension benefits.

Dismissing the petition, the judgment authored by Justice Bhuyan emphasized that consciously distinguishing the earlier precedent would not render the precedent per incuriam, and since Rajesh Chander Sood's judgment effectively distinguished DS Nakara's case, therefore, it would not render Rajesh Chander Sood's judgment per incuriam and remains binding on the petitioners.

The Court added that the petitioners could not seek to challenge an existing precedent by invoking the Court's writ jurisdiction without first pursuing the remedy of review and subsequently filing a curative petition upon the exhaustion of the review jurisdiction.

“Thus, having regard to the discussions made above, we are of the unhesitant view that the present writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is wholly misconceived. The decision of this Court in Rajesh Chander Sood (supra) is clearly binding on the petitioners. That being the position, there is no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Case Title: SATISH CHANDER SHARMA & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 431

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Varma, AOR Ms. Adyasha Nanda, Adv. Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Prakash Pathak, Adv. Mr. Nishant Kumar, AOR Mr. Rajesh Inamdar, Adv. Mr. Ajay Desai, Adv. Mr. Revanta Solanki, Adv. Mr. Abhyudaya Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Gopal Prasad, AOR Ms. Shalya Agarwal, Adv.