Academic Questions, Mootness and Infructuous Petitions
Chapter -Nine
Syllabus topic 7, "Limits of judicial review"
Pages 356 to 357 of 430
In one line
A court decides live disputes, so a petition that has stopped mattering is dismissed however interesting the question is.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: a court will not decide an academic, hypothetical or infructuous question, that is one in which no live dispute survives between the parties and no relief can operate; but it may decide such a question where it is of general public importance, where it is likely to recur and evade review, or where the decision will govern other pending matters.
The three related ideas
Academic. The question has no practical consequence for the parties, either because it was hypothetical from the beginning or because it has ceased to matter.
Infructuous. Something has happened which makes the relief impossible or pointless: the examination is over, the appointment has been made, the property has been sold, the term of office has expired.
Moot. The English and American word for the same thing.
Why the limit exists
Because a court decides disputes. Advisory opinions in India belong to Article 143, and only the President may ask for one.
Because argument is worse without a stake. A party with nothing to gain will not argue as well, and the court's decision will be the poorer.
Because relief is the point. The writ jurisdiction is remedial, and where no remedy can operate there is nothing for the court to do.
Because of the docket. Time spent on a dead case is taken from a live one.
When a court decides anyway
Where the question is of general public importance. State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, AIR 2010 SC 2550, is the standing example: the appointee had ceased to hold the office of Advocate General by the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, and the Court nevertheless used the occasion to review the whole course of public interest litigation and to issue directions to all courts.
Where the wrong is capable of repetition yet evading review. Short-duration orders, such as a ban on an assembly, expire before a petition can be heard, and if mootness were absolute they could never be tested.
Where other cases depend on it. A question arising in many pending matters is decided even though the particular petitioner has lost interest.
Where a declaration still has value. A person illegally detained and since released may still get a declaration and compensation: Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086.
The relation to standing
An academic question is often a standing problem in disguise. A petitioner who has ceased to be affected is in much the same position as one who was never affected, and Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed, AIR 1976 SC 578, is the case on the second. The difference is that a public interest petitioner never had a personal stake and is heard because of the class he represents, so mootness does not touch him in the same way.
Academic Questions, Mootness and Infructuous Petitions
A worked example
A candidate challenges the cancellation of an examination. By the time the petition is heard, the examination has been conducted again, she has appeared, and she has passed.
Her own grievance is infructuous. But if her petition also raised the question whether the board may cancel an entire examination without hearing the candidates, and there are forty similar petitions pending, the court will decide it, because the question is of general importance and will govern the others. And if she claims compensation for the year she lost, that claim is live and keeps the petition alive with it.
What this does NOT mean
It does not mean the court refuses to declare the law. It refuses to do so where nothing turns on it for anybody.
It does not mean a petitioner who succeeds too late gets nothing. A declaration and costs are often given.
It does not mean the objection is taken at the end. A respondent who wants to raise it should raise it at once, because a court which has heard the matter fully is reluctant to dismiss it as academic.
Quick revision
A court decides live disputes and refuses academic, hypothetical or infructuous questions, because advisory opinions belong to Article 143, argument without a stake is worse, the jurisdiction is remedial and the docket is finite. It decides anyway where the question is of general public importance, as in Balwant Singh Chaufal; where the wrong is capable of repetition yet evading review; where other pending matters depend on it; and where a declaration or compensation is still available, as in Rudul Sah.
Test yourself
1. Why does a court refuse an academic question? Because it decides disputes rather than giving advisory opinions, which under the Constitution may be sought only by the President under Article 143, and because no relief can operate.
2. Give the exception that keeps short-lived orders reviewable. The rule that a wrong capable of repetition yet evading review may be decided although the particular order has expired.
3. What kept the matter alive in Balwant Singh Chaufal? The general public importance of the question, which allowed the Court to review the course of public interest litigation and issue guidelines although the appointee had already ceased to hold office.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.