Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Supreme Court of India, 27 March 1961, 5 judges, 1961 AIR 1457, 1962 SCR (1) 574
Where a High Court dismisses an Article 226 petition on the merits after contest, res judicata bars a fresh Article 32 petition on the same facts for the same relief, unless the decision is set aside in appeal.
Facts
Six writ petitions under Article 32 were heard together because the respondents raised the same preliminary objection in each: the petitioners had already moved the High Court under Article 226 for similar writs and failed. In the lead petition, tenants had lost their land before the Board of Revenue on the basis of an amended U. P. land reform law. Their writ petition in the Allahabad High Court was not pressed in view of a Full Bench ruling against them and was dismissed. After the time for appeal under Article 136 had run out, they filed an Article 32 petition on the same grounds. The respondents argued it was barred by res judicata.
Questions before the Court
- Whether the rule of res judicata applies to a petition under Article 32 for enforcement of fundamental rights.
- What kinds of dismissal of an Article 226 petition by a High Court create that bar.
What the Court held
- The right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right, but res judicata is not a mere technical rule. It rests on public policy: finality of decisions of competent courts and not vexing a party twice over the same matter. It therefore applies to Article 32 petitions.
- A High Court decision dismissing an Article 226 petition on the merits after contest binds the parties unless modified or reversed by appeal or other proceedings permitted by the Constitution. The party cannot bypass it by an original petition under Article 32 on the same facts for the same or similar relief.
- Dismissal on the ground of laches or of an alternative remedy is not a bar, except where the facts found may themselves be relevant under Article 32. A summary dismissal in limine is a bar only if the order is on the merits; a dismissal without a speaking order, or as withdrawn, is not.
- Petitions 66 and 67 of 1956 and Writ Petition 5 of 1958 were dismissed as barred. In other petitions the objection was rejected or left for decision after the High Court orders were produced.
Why it matters
The judgment lays down when the decision of a High Court in writ proceedings bars a later petition under Article 32. It separates dismissals on the merits from dismissals for laches, alternative remedy, without a speaking order or on withdrawal. It also treats the binding force of judgments of competent courts as part of the rule of law.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“If the petition filed in the High Court under Art. 226 is dismissed not on the merits but because of the laches of the party applying for the writ or because it is held that the party had an alternative remedy available to it, then the dismissal of the writ petition would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under Art. 32 except in cases where and if the facts thus found by the High Court may themselves be relevant even under Art. 32.”
“It would not be open to a party to ignore the said judgment and move this Court under Art. 32 by an original petition made on the same facts and for obtaining the same or similar orders or writs.”
“The binding character of judgments pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction is itself an essential part of the rule of law, and the rule of law obviously is the basis of the administration of justice on which the Constitution lays so much emphasis.”
“There can be little doubt that the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain applications under Art. 32 which are original cannot be confused or mistaken or used for the appellate jurisdiction of this Court which alone can be invoked for correcting errors in the decisions of High Courts pronounced in writ petitions under Art. 226.”
Provisions interpreted
Case and bench
- Parties
- Daryao and Others v. The State of U. P. and Others (and Connected Petitions)
- Case
- Writ Petition No. 66 of 1956 and connected writ petitions under Article 32
- Decided
- 27 March 1961
- Bench
- Gajendragadkar, P.B., Sarkar, A.K., Wanchoo, K.N., Gupta, K.C. Das, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by Gajendragadkar J.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.