- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
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
- Whether the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable in light of the respondents’ preliminary objection.
- 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.
- 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
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Krishna Swami v. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 605 | Relied upon by the respondents regarding maintainability of an Article 32 writ petition. | Not adjudicated; referenced as part of the respondents’ preliminary objection. |
| Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Registrar General, Supreme Court Of India (1996) 3 SCC 114 | Relied upon by the respondents regarding maintainability of an Article 32 writ petition. | Not adjudicated; referenced as part of the respondents’ preliminary objection. |
| Union of India v. Darshna Devi (1996) 2 SCC 681 | Relied upon by the respondents regarding maintainability of an Article 32 writ petition. | Not adjudicated; referenced as part of the respondents’ preliminary objection. |
| Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 749 | Relied upon by the respondents regarding maintainability of an Article 32 writ petition. | Not adjudicated; referenced as part of the respondents’ preliminary objection. |
| P. Ashokan v. Union of India (1998) 3 SCC 56, JT (1998) 1 SC 511 | Relied upon by the respondents regarding maintainability of an Article 32 writ petition. | Not adjudicated; referenced as part of the respondents’ preliminary objection. |
| A.R Antulay v. R.S Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602 | Cited by the petitioner to contend that the impugned judgment was passed without jurisdiction, making the respondents’ cited decisions inapplicable. | Not decided in this order; noted as the petitioner’s basis for disputing the preliminary objection. |
| Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr., U.P (AIR 1963 SC 996), 1963 Supp (1) SCR 885 | Cited by the petitioner in the context of the permissible scope of relief under Article 142. | Not decided in this order; referenced as support for the petitioner’s contention that Article 142 jurisdiction was exceeded. |
| Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 584 | Cited by the petitioner in the context of the scope/limits of Article 142. | Not decided in this order; referenced as support for the petitioner’s contention that Article 142 jurisdiction was exceeded. |
| Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India WP (C) No. 200 of 1995 | Identified by the Court as the pending Constitution Bench matter considering the scope of Article 142 (arguments concluded; judgment reserved). | The Court deferred hearing of the present writ petition until judgment is pronounced in this matter. |
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.
1. A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri K.G Shah, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents as regards the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in Krishna Swami v. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 605, Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India (1996) 3 SCC 114, Union of India v. Darshna Devi (1996) 2 SCC 681, Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 749 and P. Ashokan v. Union of India (1998) 3 SCC 56, JT (1998) 1 SC 511.
2. Shri Shanti Bhushan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has, however, submitted that these decisions have no application in view of the law laid down by this Court in A.R Antulay v. R.S Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602, inasmuch as the impugned judgment of this Court is a judgment passed without jurisdiction and in this context the learned counsel has invited our attention to the decisions of this Court in Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr., U.P AIR 1963 SC 996, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 885 and Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 584 and has urged that in granting relief under Article 142 of the Constitution this Court has exceeded the jurisdiction which could be exercised by this Court under Article 142.
3. The question relating to scope of the powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution is under consideration before the Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India WP (C) No. 200 of 1995 in which the arguments have been concluded and judgment is reserved. Since the matter regarding the scope of the powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution is under consideration in the said case, it would be more appropriate that the hearing of this matter is deferred till the decision in the said matter.
4. The writ petition may be listed for hearing after the judgment in Writ Petition (C) No. 200 of 1995 is pronounced.
Court Masters
Alert