Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra

Facts

Arising out of a matrimonial dispute, the petitioner sought to reopen a final judgment of the Supreme Court, contending that an aggrieved party could invoke Article 32 to challenge a final order of the Court itself. This raised the question whether writ jurisdiction could reach the Supreme Court's own decisions.

Issues

• Can a writ under Article 32 be issued against a final judgment of the Supreme Court or to a High Court?
• What remedy, if any, exists to reconsider a final judgment of the Supreme Court after dismissal of review?

Arguments

The petitioner contended that to cure gross miscarriage of justice the aggrieved party could approach the Court under Article 32 against its own final order. The respondents argued that a High Court is not an inferior court and the Supreme Court cannot issue writs to itself or to coordinate Benches.

Held

The Court held that a High Court cannot issue a writ to another High Court or to a coordinate Bench, and certiorari cannot run to the Supreme Court; equally, the Supreme Court will not issue a writ under Article 32 to a High Court or to any Bench of itself, since High Courts are not inferior courts. Tracing the nature of writ jurisdiction, it reiterated that the technicalities of English prerogative writs have no role under the constitutional scheme. To prevent abuse of process or gross injustice, the Court devised the 'curative petition' as the residual remedy after exhaustion of review.

Ratio decidendi

Writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 cannot be invoked against coordinate or superior courts; the sole avenue to reconsider a final Supreme Court judgment is a curative petition founded on the Court's inherent power to do complete justice.

Significance

Definitive exposition of the limits of writ jurisdiction within the judicial hierarchy and the origin of the curative-petition jurisdiction; the chapter's principal authority on the nature of writs and the bar against issuing writs to coordinate/superior courts.

Related