RUPA ASHOK HURRA VS ASHOK HURRA : CASE SUMMARY
The Supreme Court in its landmark judgment Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra (AIR 2002 SC 1771 ) held that an aggrieved person can file curative petition even after dismissal of review petition on limited grounds of violation of principle of natural justice or bias in adjudication.
THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT
In this case the Supreme Court deliberated the issue whether an aggrieved persons is entitled to any relief after dismissal of review petition.
The Supreme Court made a detailed survey of its original, review and appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court also noted its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court noted that in English Law there are two types of writs that is – (i) judicial procedural writs like writ of motion, writ of summons, which are not in vogue in India (ii) Substantive Writs i.e. writ of quo warranto, certiorari, habeus corpus, mandamus, and prohibition, which are also in vogue under India. In pre-constitutional era only the chartered High Courts had power to issue substantive writs but under the constitution all the High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 have been given jurisdiction to issue writs.
The Supreme Court noted that High Court cannot issue writs against other High Courts. The Supreme Court noted that High Courts have not constituted as inferior courts under the Constitutional Scheme. The Supreme Court cannot issue writ under Article 32 to a High Court. A larger bench of Supreme Court can not issue writs under Article 32 to smaller benches.
The Supreme Court after analyzing various judgments held that a final judgment/order passed by the Supreme Court can not be assailed in an application under Article 32 of Constitution of India by an aggrieved person whether he was a party to the case or not.
The Supreme Court noted that the learned Counsels of all the parties pleaded that even after exhausting the remedy of review under Article 137 of the Constitution, an aggrieved person may be granted opportunity to approach Supreme Court in case of gross abuse of process of the Court or gross miscarriage of justice.
The issue before the Court was whether the Supreme Court had inherent power to correct its order after dismissal of review petition on the ground that it was passed without jurisdiction or in violation of principle of natural justice or due to unfair procedure or miscarriage of justice.
The court noted that two competing principles are involved i.e. certainty and finality of judgment of the Court of last resort and dispensing justice on reconsideration of judgment on the ground that it is vitiated being in violation of the principle of natural justice or apprehension of bias or abuse of process of law.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
The Supreme Court noted that wide powers had been conferred upon the Supreme Court under Article 129 and Article 142 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that it has inherent power to reconsider its judgments to prevent abuse of process of law or miscarriage of justice.
The Supreme Court held that such petition can only filed under two circumstances (i) violation of principles of natural justice in that he was not a party to the lis but the judgment adversely affected his interest or he was party to the lis but he was not served with the notice (ii) where the learned judge failed to disclose the connection with the subject matter or the parties.
_____________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.