ARUNIMA BARUAH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 904 · Decided: 27-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ARUNIMA BARUAH 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 27, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226-Exercise of jurisdiction under-Suppression of material 
C fact by petitioner-Writ petition filed suppressing the fact of filing of suit in 
District Court and non-granting of interim injunction-However, after filing 
the writ petition suit was withdrawn-High Court declining to entertain the 
writ petition-Held, though appellant had suppressed a material fact and 
High Court may be correct that in a case of this nature, Court's jurisdiction 
D may not be invoked, however, suppression of filing of the suit is no longer 
a material fact, and in case another writ petition is filed disclosing all the 
facts, Court, at that point of time, will be entitled to determine the case on 
merits having regard to the human right of the appellant to access to justice 
and keeping in view the fact that judicial review is basic feature of the 
Constitution-Judgment of the High Court, on facts, shall not operate as res 
E judicata-Judgment Review-Human Right of access to justice-Res judicata. 
Mw:im-Ubi jus ibi remedium-App/icability of 
Words and Phrases: 
F 
'Material facts '-Meaning of in the context of Court's refusal to exercise 
its discretionary jurisdiction on petitioner suppressing material facts. 
Services of appellant, who was a confirmed employee of Indian Council 
for Child Welfare, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 
were terminated. She challenged the said order by filing a suit in the District 
G Court with an application for an ad interim injunction. The court issued notice 
but granted no ad interim injunctio~. Soon thereafter, the appellant filed a 
writ petition in the High Court challenging the termination order. In the writ 
petition pend ency of the suit was not disclosed. She filed an application for 
withdrawal of the suit and the District Court permitted the Suit to be withdrawn. 
H 
904 
t 
. -
' 
ARUNIMA BARUAH v. U.0.L 
905 
Later, a Single Judge of the High Court. declined to entertain the writ petition A 
on the ground of concealment of material fact by the writ petitioner. The intra-
court appeal having been dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court, 
the Writ petitioner filed the present appeal. 
On the question : how far and to what extent suppression of fact by way 
of non-disclosure would affect a person's right of access to justice. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. On the one hand, judicial review is a basic feature of the 
Constitution, on the other, it provides for a discretionary remedy. Access to C 
justice is a human right. A person who has a grievance against a State, a 
forum must be provided for redressal thereof. The court's jurisdiction to 
determine the lis between the parties, therefore, may be viewed from the 
human rights concept of access to justice. The same, however, would not mean 
that the court will have no jurisdiction to deny equitable relief when the 
complainant does not approach the court with a pair of clean hands, but to D 
what extent such relief should be denied is to be considered. 
[Para 9 and IOI [909-G-H; 910-Al 
S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (20041 7 
SCC 166; Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) by Lrs. and Anr. v. B.D. Agarwal & 
Ors., [2003) 6 SCC 230; Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi & Anr. v. The State E 
of Gujarat & Ors., [2007) 5 SCALE 357; Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, 
[2005) 4 SCC 649 and Hatton & Ors. v. United Kingdom, 15 BHRC 259, relied 
on. 
Hatton & Ors. v. United Kingdom, 15 BHRC 259, referred to. 
1.2. It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to exercise its 
discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of material fact. What would 
be a material fact, suppression whereof would disentitle the appellant to obtain 
F 
a discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each 
case. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of G 
the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same was 
material for grant or denial of the relief. If the fact suppressed is not material 
for determination of the lis between the parties, the court may not refuse to 
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. [Para 11) [910-B-C] 
S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors., [2004] 7 H 
906 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
12007] 5 S.C.R. 
A sec 166, relied on. 
\ 
1.3. It i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.