Res Judicata in Writ Jurisdiction

In one line

A point decided against you in one writ petition cannot be raised again in another, because there has to be an end of litigation.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: where a High Court dismisses a petition under Article 226 after hearing the matter on the merits, a subsequent petition to the Supreme Court under Article 32 on the same facts and for the same relief by the same party is barred by the general principle of res judicata; the principle rests on public policy and the need for finality, and it applies although Article 32 is itself a fundamental right.

MU's question

Res judicata is set on five of the eight papers, more often than any other item in Module IV: as a short note by itself, paired with laches, and once expressly in the context of limits on judicial review. So it needs the case, the reasons, the exceptions and the constructive branch, which is the next chapter.

The provision it comes from

Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provides that no court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such court.

Section 11 in terms applies to suits. What applies to writ petitions is the general principle behind it.

The case

Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457.

Facts. Petitioners whose writ petitions under Article 226 had already been dismissed by a High Court came to the Supreme Court under Article 32 on the same facts and for the same reliefs.

Held. Where a High Court dismisses a petition under Article 226 after hearing the matter on the merits, on the ground that no fundamental right was proved or contravened or that its contravention was constitutionally justified, a later petition to the Supreme Court under Article 32 on the same facts and for the same relief by the same party is barred by the general principle of res judicata. The rule rests on public policy and on the need for finality, and it applies although Article 32 is itself a fundamental right, because the guarantee is of the right to move the Court and not of a right to have the same question decided twice. It does not apply where the earlier petition was dismissed in limine without a speaking order, or on the ground of laches or of an available alternative remedy, because there has then been no decision on the merits.