MOHD. ASLAM versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 782 · Decided: 22-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH, K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MOHD.ASLAM 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 22, 1996 
B 
(J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
A1ticle 32-Writ petition filed for reconsideration of an earlier judg-
C mmt-Held, A1ticle 32 is not available to assail the correctness of a decision 
on merits or to claim its reconsideration. 
Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
S. 123(3), (3-A)-Conupt practice-Writ Petition filed to reconsider the 
D judgment of this Court in Manohar Joshi's case-Held, not main-
tainable-The apprehensions and misgivings expressed in the writ petition are 
imaginary and baseless-There is no occasion to read in the judgment in 
Ma11ohar Joshi, something which is not said or to say that it conflicts with 
concept of secularism in S.R. Bommai where the question relating to the 
E meaning of sub-sections (3) and (3-A) of s.123 neither arose nor was decided. 
Khoday Distilleries Limited & Anr. v. The Registrar General Supreme 
Court of India, (1995) 6 Scale 742, followed. 
Mano/tar Joshi v. Niti11 Bhaurao Patil and Another, [1996) 1 SCC 169, 
F 
explained. 
A.R. Antulay v. RS. Nayak & Am:, [1988) Suppl. 1 SCR 1, S.R. 
Bommai and Others v. Union of llldia and Others, (1994) 3 SCC 1, Jamaat-
E-lslami Hind v. Union of India, [1995) 1 SCC 428, Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant 
G Prabhoo v. Sl11i Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte & Others, [1996] 1 SCC 130, 
Shri Suryakalll Ve11katrao Mahadik v. Smt. Saroj Sa11desh Naik (Bhosale), 
[1996) 1 SCC 384 and Mohan v. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, (1996) 1 Scale 
SP 3, referred to. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 135 of 
H 1996. 
782 
/ 
\ 
MOHD.ASLAMv. U.O.l. 
783 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
A 
Dr. Rajiv Dhawan and M.M. Kashyap for the Petitioner. 
O.P. Sharma for the Respondents. 
Danial Lalifi, Avikar Ray, Akhtar Hussain and Ms. Nanita Sharma B 
for the Jntervenors. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The prayer in this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution 
of India is for reconsideration of the Judgment in Ma1tohar Joshi v. Nitin C 
Bhaurao Patil and Anotlw; [1996] 1 SCC 169. The petitioner's contention, 
in substance, is that the judgment is incorrect. 
It . is sufficient to say that Article 32 of the Constitution is not 
available to assail the correctness of a decision on merits or to claim its 
reconsideration. This has been clearly reiterated in the recent decision in D 
Kltoday Distilleries Limited & Anr. v. The Registrar General, Supreme Coult 
of India, (1995) 6 Scale 742, wherein the decision in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. 
r 
Nayak & Anr., [1988] Supp.l SCR 1, has been explained. This alone is 
sufficient to dismiss the writ petition. 
However, in view of certain apprehensions expressed by the E 
petitioner, we deem it proper to make some further observations now, 
which we had considered unnecessary to incorporate in the judgment in 
Manohar Joshi. We may observe that the decision of this Court in S.R. 
Bommai and Others. v. Union of India and Others, [1994] 3 SCC 1, did not 
relate to the construction of, and determination of the scope of sub-
sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People 
Act, 1951 and, therefore, nothing in the decision in S.R. Bonunai is of 
assistance for construing the meaning and scope of sub-sections (3) and 
(3A) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act. Reference 
F 
to the decision in S.R. Bommai is, therefore, inapposite in this context. 
We may also add that the challenge in the writ petition to the 
correctness of the decision in Manohar Joshi is based on a misreading of 
that decision. In the judgment, the decision on the question of law is based 
G 
on earlier Constitution Bench decisions of this Court by which we are 
bound; and the observation therein which is challenged as incorrect in this 
writ petition, is not the basis of the decision but an opinion expressed on H 
784 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996) 3 S.C.R. 
A an assumption if the making of the alleged statement of the hope of 
Maharashtra becoming a Hindu State, in the speech is held to be proved, 
without recording a finding that it was so proved. This allegation was based 
on a police report and Manohar Joshi did not admit the making of such a 
statement in his speech. Moreover, strong disapproval was expressed of 
such a statement, if actually made. This is clear particularly from paras 62 
B to 67 of the decision in Manohar Joshi reported in (1996] 1 SCC 169. 
S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.