RUPA ASHOK HURRA versus ASHOK HURRA AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 1006 · Decided: 10-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Heard

Cited by 15 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

--
A 
RUPA ASHOK HURRA 
v. 
ASHOK HURRA AND ANR. 
APRIL 10, 2002 
B 
[S.P. BHARUCHA, CJ., SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, UMESH 
C. BANERJEE, S.N. VARIA VA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
r 
r-
Constitution of India, 1950: 
c 
Articles 12 and 32-Writ Petition-Writ of certiorari-Challenging 
validity of judgment of Supreme Court after dismissal of Review Petition 
therein-Maintainability of-Held, not maintainable-Superior Courts of 
Justice do not fall under the ambit of State or other authorities under Article 
12. 
D 
Article 142-Reconsideration of Judgment of Supreme Court after 
dismissal of Review Petition-Permissibility under inherent powers-Held, 
Court may reconsider its judgments in exercise of its inherent powers in rarest 
\ ~ 
of rare cases to prevent abuse of its process and to cure gross miscarriage of 
justice-Grounds and procedure for such re-consideration laid down-Supreme 
E Court Rules, 1966-0rder XL VJJ Rule 6. 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of Ex debito Justitiae-Applicability of 
-
Doctrine of stare decisis-discussed 
,_, 
F 
The common questions for consideration in the instant writ petitions 
were whether writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India could 
be maintained to question the validity of a Judgment of Supreme Court after 
the petition for review of the said judgment was dismissed; and whether the 
r 
order passed by this Court could be corrected under its inherent powers after 
G dismissal of the review petition on the ground that it was passed either without 
jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice or due to unfair 
_......_ 
procedure giving scope for bias which resulted in abuse of the process of the 
' 
Court or miscarriage of justice to an aggrieved person. 
Answering the questions, the Court 
H 
1006 
... 
' 
--' 
RUPAASHOKHURRAv ASHOKHURRA 
1007 
HELD : Per Quadri, J. (for himself, CJ., Variava and Patil, JJ.) 
A 
I.I. A fin•I judgment/order passed hy this Court cannot be assailed in 
a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by an aggrieved person 
whether he was a party to the case or not. [1019-GJ 
1.2. In view of historical background and the very nature of writ B 
jurisdiction, which is a supervisory jurisdiction over inferior Courts!fribunals, 
on Principle a writ of certiorari cannot bejssued to co-ordinate courts and a 
fortiori to superior courts. Thus, it follows that a High Court cannot issue a 
writ to another High Court; nor can one Bench of a High Court issue a writ 
to a different Bench of the same High Court, much less can writ jurisdiction C 
of a High Court be invoked to seek issuance of a writ of certiorari to the 
Supreme Court. Though the judgments/orders of High Courts are liable to 
be corrected by the Supreme Court in its appellate jurisdiction under Articles 
132, 133 and 134 as well as under Article 136 of the Constitution, the High 
Courts are not constituted as inferior courts in constitutional scheme. 
Therefore, the Supreme Court would not issue a writ under Article 32 to a D 
High Court. Further, neither a smaller Bench nor a larger Bench of the 
Supreme Court can issue a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution to any 
other Bench of the Supreme Court. Article 32 can be invokeJ only for the 
purpose of enforcing the fundamental rights conferred in Part III and it is a 
settled position in law that no judicial order passed by any superior court in 
judicial proceedings can be said to violate any of the fundamental rights E 
enshrined in Part III. The superior courts of justice do not also fall within 
the ambit of State or other authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution. 
[1015-D-G] 
Naresh Shridhar Miraikar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., [1966] F 
3 SCR 744; A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Anr., [1988) 2 SCC 602; Smt. 
Triveniben v. State of Gujarat, [1989] I SCC 678; Krishna Swami v. Union of 
India and Ors., [1992] 4 SCC 605; Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India, [1996] 2 
SCC 749; Khodav Distilleries Ltd. and Anr. v. Registrar General, Supreme Court 
of India, [1996] 3 SCC ll4; GurbachanSingh andAnr., [1996)3 SCC I17; Babu 
Singh and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr, [1996] 6 SCC 565; P. Ashokan v. G 
Union of India and Anr., [1998) 3 SCC 56; Supreme Court Bar Association v. 
Union a/India and Anr., [1998) 4 SCC 409 and M.S. Ahlwatv. State o/Haryana 
and Anr., [2000] I SCC 278, referred to. 
to. 
Hal.< bury 's laws of England, Fourth Edition (reissue), Vol. I (I), referred 
H 
1008 
SUPREME COUR

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