Res Judicata in Writ Jurisdiction
Chapter
Syllabus topic 7, "Limits of judicial review"
Pages 330 to 332 of 430
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.
Res Judicata in Writ Jurisdiction
Why it matters here. It is the whole answer to MU's most repeated question in this module.
The conditions, in a list
- The same parties, or parties claiming under them.
- The same matter directly and substantially in issue.
- A court competent to decide it.
- A decision on the merits.
- Finality, that is the earlier decision has not been set aside.
The dismissals that do not bar
Dismissal in limine without a speaking order. Nothing has been decided.
Dismissal on the ground of laches.
Dismissal on the ground that an alternative remedy exists.
Withdrawal without liberty, which may bar a fresh petition on a different footing, but is not res judicata.
A dismissal by a Bench which had no jurisdiction.
The direction it works in
The bar operates from the High Court to the Supreme Court, and it also operates the other way and between High Courts, and between a suit and a writ petition. The principle is one of public policy and does not depend on which court decided first.
A worked example
A landlord's writ petition challenging a rent control order is dismissed by a High Court by a reasoned order holding that the order is within the Act. He files a petition under Article 32 on the same grounds. Separately, his tenant's neighbour, on identical facts but on his own tenancy, files a petition raising the same construction point.
The landlord is barred by Daryao. The neighbour is not: he is a different party litigating on his own facts, and the earlier decision binds him only as a precedent, if at all, and not as res judicata. If the landlord's earlier petition had been dismissed in one line without reasons, he too would not be barred.
What this does NOT mean
It does not mean section 11 applies as such. It is the general principle behind it that applies.
It does not mean a fundamental rights petition can never be renewed. It can, if the earlier dismissal was not on the merits.
It does not mean res judicata bars a challenge to a different order. A fresh order gives a fresh cause of action even on the same question.
Quick revision
Section 11 of the Code applies to suits; the general principle applies to writ petitions. Daryao: a dismissal on the merits under Article 226 bars a later petition under Article 32 on the same facts and relief by the same party, because public policy requires finality, and Article 32 guarantees the right to move and not a second decision. It does not bar where the dismissal was in limine without a speaking order, or on laches, or on an alternative remedy. Five conditions: same parties, same matter, competent court, decision on the merits, and finality.
Res Judicata in Writ Jurisdiction
Test yourself
1. Does section 11 of the Code apply to writ petitions? No. Section 11 governs suits; what applies to writ petitions is the general principle of res judicata which underlies it.
2. Which dismissals do not bar a later petition? A dismissal in limine without a speaking order, a dismissal for laches, and a dismissal because an alternative remedy was available.
3. How is the bar reconciled with Article 32 being a fundamental right? Article 32 guarantees the right to move the Court, not a right to have the same question between the same parties decided a second time.
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.