The Supreme Court of India, in a significant decision, reiterated that judgments rendered by a High Court cannot be declared illegal under Article 32 of the Constitution. The ruling came in response to a writ petition filed by Vimal Babu Dhumadiya and others against the State of Maharashtra and other respondents.
The bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta, dismissed the petition while clarifying the constitutional limitations of Article 32 and emphasizing the proper remedies available to aggrieved parties.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a property dispute where the petitioners alleged that their apartments were constructed on government land. The petitioners claimed they were not adequately heard in proceedings before the Bombay High Court, which had earlier ruled against them in its judgment dated July 25, 2024 (Writ Petition No. 833 of 2019).
In their petition to the Supreme Court, the petitioners sought reliefs including:
– A declaration that the High Court’s judgment was illegal.
– Directions for a survey of the disputed land.
– Regularization of their apartments.
– Protection from eviction or interference until due legal process was followed.
The petitioners argued that the High Court judgment violated their fundamental rights and warranted intervention by the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
1. Scope of Article 32
– The primary issue was whether the Supreme Court, under Article 32, could declare a judgment by a High Court illegal.
– Article 32 is a constitutional remedy for enforcing fundamental rights. The petitioners invoked it, claiming that the High Court’s failure to hear them constituted a violation of their rights.
2. Available Remedies Against High Court Judgments
– The case also raised the question of the appropriate legal avenues for addressing grievances against a High Court ruling. The petitioners bypassed the established options of filing an application for recall or a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 and directly sought relief under Article 32.
3. Encroachment and Property Regularization
– The petitioners’ substantive grievance involved the alleged encroachment on government land and the need for regularization of their apartments. The legal issue centered on whether such matters could be addressed by the Supreme Court under Article 32.
Observation
The Supreme Court emphasized the constitutional limitations of Article 32, noting that it is not the appropriate remedy for declaring a High Court judgment illegal. Key observations included:
1. “Under Article 32 of the Constitution, the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay cannot be declared as illegal.”
2. The Court pointed out that if the petitioners felt aggrieved due to not being adequately heard, their remedies lay in:
– Filing a petition or application for recall of the judgment before the High Court.
– Challenging the judgment through a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Decision
Based on its observations, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that Article 32 does not allow the Court to invalidate a High Court’s judgment. The bench stated:
– “If the petitioners have not been heard and are affected by the said judgment, the remedy available to them is to either file a petition/application for recall of the said order/judgment or challenge the same by way of a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution before this Court.”
The Court left it open for the petitioners to pursue these alternative remedies as permitted under the law. All pending applications in connection with the case were also disposed of.
