Daryao v State of Uttar Pradesh

Facts

The petitioners had earlier filed writ petitions under Article 226 in the High Court challenging the same grievance, which were dismissed on the merits. They then approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 raising the same issues. The question was whether the earlier dismissal barred the fresh petition.

Issues

• Does the general principle of res judicata apply to writ petitions under Articles 32 and 226?
• Does dismissal on merits of an Article 226 petition bar a subsequent Article 32 petition between the same parties on the same cause?

Arguments

The petitioners argued that the right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right that cannot be defeated by res judicata. The State argued that res judicata, founded in public policy, applies to writ proceedings to ensure finality of litigation.

Held

The Court held that the general principle of res judicata, being founded on public policy, applies to petitions under Articles 32 and 226. A decision on the merits of an Article 226 petition by a High Court binds the parties and bars a fresh Article 32 petition on the same issue, subject to appeal. Applying res judicata does not impair the content of fundamental rights; if the earlier petition was dismissed not on merits but on grounds like laches or alternative remedy, the bar may not apply.

Ratio decidendi

Res judicata applies to constitutional writ proceedings under Articles 32 and 226; a prior decision on merits between the same parties precludes re-agitation, without thereby diminishing the fundamental right under Article 32.

Significance

Leading authority reconciling the finality of litigation with the fundamental right to constitutional remedies; the settled procedural principle governing writ petitions, repeatedly affirmed and cited in later jurisprudence on Article 32.

Related