Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

The matter concerns a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. The petitioner, in response, contended that the challenged (impugned) judgment of the Supreme Court was passed without jurisdiction, alleging that while granting relief under Article 142, the Court exceeded the jurisdiction permissible under that provision. The Court noted that the scope of Article 142 was already under consideration before a Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India (WP (C) No. 200 of 1995), where arguments had concluded and judgment was reserved.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable in light of the respondents’ preliminary objection.
2. Whether the impugned judgment of the Supreme Court is alleged to be without jurisdiction on the ground that relief granted under Article 142 exceeded the scope of Article 142.
3. Whether the hearing of the present writ petition should be deferred pending the Constitution Bench decision in WP (C) No. 200 of 1995 concerning the scope of Article 142.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondents' Arguments

• A preliminary objection was raised to the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32, relying on prior decisions of the Supreme Court (as cited in the opinion).

Petitioner's Arguments

• The petitioner submitted that the decisions relied upon by the respondents did not apply because, as per A.R Antulay v. R.S Nayak, the impugned judgment was a judgment passed without jurisdiction.
• The petitioner argued that, in granting relief under Article 142, the Supreme Court exceeded the jurisdiction that could be exercised under Article 142, inviting attention to Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr., U.P and Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court recorded the respondents’ preliminary objection on maintainability and the petitioner’s counter that the impugned Supreme Court judgment was without jurisdiction because Article 142 relief allegedly exceeded permissible limits. The Court then noted that the question concerning the scope of the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 was already under consideration before a Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India (WP (C) No. 200 of 1995), where arguments had concluded and judgment was reserved. In view of the pending authoritative decision on the same constitutional question, the Court considered it more appropriate to defer the hearing of the present matter until that judgment is delivered.

Holding and Implications

HEARING DEFERRED / LISTING DIRECTED AFTER PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT.

The writ petition was directed to be listed for hearing after the judgment in Writ Petition (C) No. 200 of 1995 is pronounced. The immediate effect is that no determination was made on maintainability or on the merits of the Article 142/jurisdiction challenge at this stage. The order does not set out any broader implications beyond postponing the hearing pending the Constitution Bench decision.