Supreme Court Rules Writ Petition Under Article 32 Cannot Be Used to Challenge Its Own Judgments
Last Updated on April 20, 2025 by Shianjany Pradhan
On April 16, the Supreme Court ruled that Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be used to challenge the Court’s own judgment.
The Court emphasized that allowing writ petitions under Article 32 to challenge final judgments would undermine judicial hierarchy, lead to endless litigation, and violate the principle of res judicata.
The Court clarified that aggrieved parties could seek a review of a decision through the review jurisdiction and, if necessary, file a curative petition.
However, they cannot challenge a judgment directly under Article 32. This would create chaos and prevent the finality of judicial decisions.
In this case, the petitioners, retired employees, sought to challenge the Court’s earlier decision in State of H.P. v. Rajesh Chander Sood, which upheld the repeal of a pension scheme that curtailed additional benefits. The petitioners argued that the earlier judgment was per incuriam as it ignored binding precedents, such as D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, which prohibits arbitrary cut-off dates for pension benefits.
Dismissing the petition, the Court ruled that the earlier judgment in Rajesh Chander Sood did not ignore D.S. Nakara, as it had distinguished the latter case.
The Court affirmed that the petitioners could not challenge an existing precedent under Article 32 without first pursuing the review process and curative petition. The petition was therefore dismissed as misconceived.
Case Title: SATISH CHANDER SHARMA & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
