- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Abdul Rehman Antulay v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The opinion concerns the disposal of Special Leave Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 1149-50/1984 and a writ petition. One learned Judge, while deciding the SLPs, followed a prior decision of the Supreme Court. Separately, the writ petition sought to challenge the validity of an order and judgment passed by the Supreme Court, alleging it to be a nullity or otherwise incorrect.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a learned Judge was justified (and obligated) to follow a binding decision of the Supreme Court while deciding SLP (Cri) Nos. 1149-50/1984.
- Whether a writ petition challenging the validity of an order and judgment of the Supreme Court as a nullity or otherwise incorrect is entertainable.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
On the SLPs, the Court stated that the learned Judge deciding SLP (Cri) Nos. 1149-50/1984 had followed a decision of the Supreme Court. The Court held that this approach was not only justified but was also the duty of the learned Judge, because a Supreme Court decision is binding on him.
On the writ petition, the Court found no merit and held that a writ petition challenging the validity of an order and judgment passed by the Supreme Court as a nullity or otherwise incorrect cannot be entertained. However, the Court clarified that dismissal of the writ petition would not prejudice the petitioner’s right to approach the Court with an appropriate review petition or to file any other application he may be entitled to file in law.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, and the writ petition was dismissed.
The direct effect is that the challenged proceedings did not succeed: the SLPs were dismissed and the writ petition was not entertained. The dismissal of the writ petition was expressly stated to be without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to seek review or to file any other permissible application. The opinion does not indicate that any new precedent was set beyond reiterating the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions.
D.A Desai, J.— I broadly agree with the conclusion recorded by my brother.
2. The learned Judge in deciding the SLP (Cri) Nos. 1149-50/1984 has followed the decision of this Court. The learned Judge was perfectly justified and indeed it was the duty of the learned Judge to follow the decision of this Court which is binding on him.
3. Special leave petitions are dismissed.
Amarendra Nath Sen, J.— There is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
5. In my view, the writ petition challenging the validity of the order and judgment passed by this Court as nullity or otherwise incorrect cannot be entertained. I wish to make it clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not prejudice the right of the petitioner, to approach the Court with an appropriate review petition or to file any other application which he may be entitled in law to file.
Alert