LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court can declare a High Court judgment illegal under Article 32 of the Constitution, and what remedies are available to parties not heard in the original proceedings.
CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Land Encroachment
Case Name: Vimal Babu Dhumadiya & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Judgment Date: January 17, 2025
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: January 17, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 77
Judges: Vikram Nath J., Sanjay Karol J., Sandeep Mehta J.
Can the Supreme Court, under Article 32 of the Constitution, declare a judgment of a High Court illegal? This question was at the heart of a recent case before the Supreme Court concerning land encroachment and the rights of parties who were not heard in the initial proceedings. The Supreme Court, in this case, addressed the issue of whether a High Court judgment could be challenged directly under Article 32, and what alternative remedies are available to those affected by such judgments. The bench comprised Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta.
Case Background
The case originated from a judgment by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on July 25, 2024, in Writ Petition No. 833 of 2019. This judgment, marked as Exhibit A (Annexure P-1), dealt with issues related to land encroachment. The petitioners, Vimal Babu Dhumadiya and others, were seemingly affected by this judgment. They initially filed a Special Leave Petition against the Bombay High Court’s order, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on December 20, 2024. Subsequently, an Interlocutory Application seeking modification of the July 25, 2024, judgment was also dismissed by the Bombay High Court on December 17, 2024. The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking to declare the Bombay High Court judgment illegal.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 25, 2024 | Division Bench of the Bombay High Court passes judgment in Writ Petition No. 833 of 2019 (Exhibit A/Annexure P-1). |
| December 20, 2024 | Supreme Court dismisses the Special Leave Petition against the Bombay High Court judgment (Annexure P-2). |
| December 17, 2024 | Bombay High Court dismisses the Interlocutory Application seeking modification of the judgment dated July 25, 2024 (Annexure P-3). |
| January 17, 2025 | Supreme Court dismisses the Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. |
Course of Proceedings
The petitioners, having failed to obtain relief through a Special Leave Petition and an Interlocutory Application in the Bombay High Court, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court. They sought a declaration that the Bombay High Court judgment was illegal and also sought directions for a survey of the properties and regularization of their apartments.
Legal Framework
The primary legal provision in question is Article 32 of the Constitution of India. This article grants individuals the right to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. The petitioners invoked this provision to challenge the Bombay High Court’s judgment, claiming it was illegal and affected their rights. The Supreme Court considered whether Article 32 could be used to declare a High Court judgment illegal.
Article 32 of the Constitution of India states:
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.
Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Bombay High Court judgment (Exhibit A/Annexure P-1) was illegal because it was passed without hearing the necessary parties, including themselves. They sought a declaration that the judgment was illegal and requested the Supreme Court to direct a survey of the properties, regularization of their apartments, and a restraint on interference with their possession until due process was followed.
The Supreme Court, however, did not delve into the merits of the High Court’s judgment. Instead, it focused on the procedural aspect of whether Article 32 could be used to declare a High Court judgment illegal. The Court noted that the petitioners had other remedies available under the law, such as filing a petition or application for recall of the order/judgment in the High Court or challenging the same by way of a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Petitioners’ Submission: The Bombay High Court judgment is illegal. |
|
| Supreme Court’s Response: Article 32 is not the appropriate remedy. |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
Although the Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues, the core issue before the Court was:
- Whether the Supreme Court can declare a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay as illegal under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the Supreme Court can declare a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay as illegal under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. | The Supreme Court held that 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. The Court clarified that if the petitioners were not heard and were affected by the said judgment, they should either file a petition/application for recall of the said order/judgment in the High Court or challenge the same by way of a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or legal provisions other than the direct reference to Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Court’s reasoning was based on its interpretation of the scope and limitations of Article 32, particularly in relation to judgments passed by High Courts.
| Authority | How it was used |
|---|---|
| Article 32 of the Constitution of India | The Court interpreted Article 32 to clarify that it cannot be used to declare a High Court judgment illegal. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Petitioners’ submission that the Bombay High Court judgment was illegal. | The Court did not accept this submission, stating that a High Court judgment cannot be declared illegal under Article 32. |
| Authority | How the Court Viewed the Authority |
|---|---|
| Article 32 of the Constitution of India | The Court clarified that Article 32 provides a remedy for the enforcement of fundamental rights but does not empower the Supreme Court to declare a High Court judgment illegal. The Court emphasized that alternative remedies, such as a recall petition in the High Court or a Special Leave Petition under Article 136, are available. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Article 32 of the Constitution and the availability of alternative remedies for the petitioners. The Court emphasized that Article 32 is meant for the enforcement of fundamental rights and not for challenging the legality of High Court judgments directly. The availability of remedies like filing a recall petition in the High Court or a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 weighed heavily in the Court’s decision.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Legal Interpretation of Article 32 | 60% |
| Availability of Alternative Remedies | 40% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Petitioners file Writ Petition under Article 32
Supreme Court considers if High Court judgment can be declared illegal under Article 32
Supreme Court determines Article 32 is not the appropriate remedy
Supreme Court dismisses the Writ Petition
Petitioners are advised to pursue alternative remedies
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of the constitutional provisions and the legal process. The Court noted that if the petitioners were not heard and were affected by the High Court judgment, they had the option to file a recall petition in the same High Court or approach the Supreme Court under Article 136. The Court stated: “In our considered opinion, 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.” The Court further clarified, “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 to challenge the same by way of a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution before this Court.” The Court concluded: “The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioners to avail such other remedy as may be available under law.”
Key Takeaways
- Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be used to declare a High Court judgment illegal.
- Parties affected by a High Court judgment, who were not heard, have remedies such as filing a recall petition in the High Court or a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 before the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court will not directly interfere with High Court judgments under Article 32 if alternative remedies are available.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions to the respondents. The Court simply dismissed the writ petition, leaving it open for the petitioners to avail such other remedies as may be available under the law.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There was no specific amendment discussed in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be used to declare a High Court judgment illegal. This reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32 is primarily for the enforcement of fundamental rights and not for directly reviewing High Court judgments when alternative remedies are available. The judgment clarifies the hierarchy of courts and the appropriate channels for seeking relief.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 32, clarifying that this provision cannot be used to declare a High Court judgment illegal. The Court emphasized that alternative remedies, such as filing a recall petition in the High Court or a Special Leave Petition under Article 136, are available for parties who were not heard in the original proceedings. The judgment reinforces the procedural framework for challenging High Court judgments and the limitations of Article 32.