The Supreme Court of India on September 15, 2025, dismissed a writ petition seeking reconsideration of its 2020 judgment that upheld the constitutional validity of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008. A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih held that a judicial decision cannot be challenged on the grounds that it violates fundamental rights, terming the petition a “misconceived” and “an abuse of the process of this Court.” The Court imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the petitioners.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by the Managing Committee of Contai Rahamania High Madrasah and Sk. Mahammad Abdur Rahaman. The petitioners sought two primary reliefs: first, to have the Supreme Court’s judgment of January 6, 2020, in Sk. Mohd. Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai High Madrasah ((2020) 6 SCC 689) reconsidered, and second, to have the matter placed before the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of a larger Constitution Bench to review the correctness of the said judgment.
The central claim of the petitioners was that the 2020 decision, which validated the 2008 Act, “hits the Article 30 of Constitution of India,” which guarantees the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
Arguments of the Petitioners
The petitioners stated that they drew “inspiration” to file the present writ petition from a recent Supreme Court order dated August 25, 2025, in Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India & ors.. They contended that, similar to the Dupare case, their petition merited consideration to re-examine a previous judgment of the Court.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The bench began its analysis by distinguishing the precedent cited by the petitioners. It noted that the Court in Vasanta Sampat Dupare entertained a writ petition under Article 32 in a capital punishment case. The order states, “what was assailed and prayed is the continuing validity of the sentence of death and reconsideration in the light of legislative and judicial developments.” The Court clarified that Dupare did not involve a simple prayer for review of an earlier order upholding a conviction.
The judgment firmly held that the Dupare case “would not apply to a case of the present nature.”
Addressing the core issue, the Court observed that its 2020 decision in Sk. Mohd. Rafique had already conducted a “threadbare consideration of the rival contentions” before declaring the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008, to be constitutionally valid.
The Court found the petitioners’ plea that the Sk. Mohd. Rafique judgment offends their Article 30 rights to be “wholly untenable.” To support this conclusion, the bench relied on the authoritative nine-Judge Constitution Bench decision in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (AIR 1967 SC 1).
Quoting the principle laid down in the Mirajkar case, the Court stated, “…it has authoritatively been held by a nine-Judge Constitution Bench that a judicial decision does not offend any Fundamental Right.”
Based on this binding precedent, the Court concluded that the writ petition was “clearly not maintainable.”
Final Decision
Finding the petition to be an “abuse of the process of this Court,” the bench dismissed it with costs of Rs. 1,00,000.
The Court directed that the costs are “to be paid to any society/organization taking care of children afflicted by cancer.” The order further instructed that “Such society/organization may be identified by the Secretary General of this Court.”
The petitioners were directed to deposit the costs in the Supreme Court Registry within one month, after which the Secretary General is to carry out the direction.
