P. Ashokan v. Union Of India And Another, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Writ Petition (C) No. of 1997 (D. No. 20068 of 1997), decided on February 6, 1998

Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)

Manoj Swarup, Ms Lalita Kohli and Ms M. Swarup, Advocates, for Manoj Swarup & Co., Advocates, for the Petitioner.

Judges

M.M Punchhi, C.J
B.N Kirpal
M. Srinivasan, JJ.

Acts

Article 32 of the Constitution
Section, no specific section mentioned, of the Constitution (implied by context)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Court considered a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and found no case to entertain it on merits. The opinion provides no further factual or procedural background. [1]

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Article 32 may be invoked to obtain reconsideration of a decision on merits after it has become final. [1][2][3]

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India (1996) 3 SCC 114	Article 32 cannot be invoked to reconsider the correctness of a decision on merits after it has become final.	The Court quoted the three-Judge Bench decision and expressly agreed with its view. [1][2][3]
Antulay (1988) 2 SCC 602	The quoted passage from Khoday states that reliance on Antulay to seek reconsideration of final decisions through Article 32 is misconceived.	Antulay appears within the quoted passage; the Court agreed with the view expressed there without separately analysing Antulay. [2][3]

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first stated that the petition did not warrant being entertained on merits. It additionally relied on Khoday, which bars invoking Article 32 where the substance of the challenge is to the correctness of a decision on merits that has already become final. [1][2]

The Court expressly endorsed that principle. Its reasoning therefore rested on the stated lack of merit and the restriction against using Article 32 to reopen final decisions. [1][2][3]

Holding and Implications

The writ petition was DISMISSED. The petitioner obtained no relief; the Court applied an existing precedent rather than announcing a new rule. [1][2][3][4]

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

P. Ashokan v. Union Of India And Another

1. On merits, we find no case to entertain this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Besides a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court, authored by J.S Verma, J. (as Hon'ble the Ex-Chief Justice then was) in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India (1996) 3 SCC 114 has ruled as follows:

“In a case like the present, where in substance the challenge is to the correctness of a decision on merits after it has become final, there can be no question of invoking Article 32 of the Constitution to claim reconsideration of the decision on the basis of its effect in accordance with law. Frequent resort to the decision in Antulay (1988) 2 SCC 602 in such situations is wholly misconceived and impels us to emphasise this fact.”

2. We are in agreement with such view.

3. The writ petition is dismissed.

P. Ashokan v. Union Of India And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

P. Ashokan v. Union Of India And Another

Comments

We use cookies to improve your experience