ABDUL REHMAN ANTULAYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.
- Citation
- 1984 INSC 85
- Decided
- 17 April 1984
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- D A DESAI
Holding
A writ petition cannot be entertained against a Supreme Court order or judgment; the appropriate remedy is a review petition.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of an order and judgment previously passed by this Court. The central issue was whether the Supreme Court could entertain a writ petition against its own order or judgment. The Court held that a writ petition cannot be used to contest a Supreme Court decision; such challenges must be made through a review petition under Article 137. It emphasized that Supreme Court decisions are binding on all courts, including itself, and that the writ jurisdiction does not extend to reviewing its own orders. Consequently, the writ petition and the accompanying special leave petitions were dismissed, with the Court noting that the dismissal does not prejudice the petitioners' right to file a proper review application.
Issues considered
- Can a writ petition under Article 32 be filed against an order or judgment of the Supreme Court itself?
- Is the Supreme Court bound to entertain such a petition, or must the remedy be a review petition under Article 137?
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 137, s. Article 141, s. Article 32
Subjects
Judgment
•
'·
A 482
AjlDUL REHMAN ANTULAY
v.
B UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.
'
'
,.. .
.,., .A..
[AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND D.A. DESAI, JJ.] .
April 17, 1984
~ .· # .
·constitution ·of India Ari. 1'41--i>uty of all courts to follow d~cision of
c the Supreme Court;
S~preme Court Rufes-Whether Supreme Court cafl. entertain writ petition
aiafnst its own .ofder anti i;tdgmfnt. · . ,.,_
ORJGIN,l.L & CRIMINAL APPELLATE . JURISDICTION : Writ
Petition (Cr!) No. 708 of !934. ·
D '(Under Article· 32 of the Constitution of India)
And
Spe~ial Leave Petitiob (Cr!) Nos. 1949·50 of 1984
(From the Judgment and Order dated 13.3.84 and 16,3.84 of
E
the Bombay High Court in Speciat'Case Nos. 24/82 & 3/83)
Mtirli Bhandare;Govindtfas, Ms-. Bina Gupta, H.R: Bhardwaj and
PP. Singh for the petitioner. ·
'
R.am Jethma/ani, Ashok Desai and Ms. Rani Jethmalani for
•
the _respondents.
The Order, 'of the Court was delivered by
AMARE'WRA NATH SEN, J. There· is' no merit in this Writ
Petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ,
G
In inY view, the writ petition challenging the validity of the
order and judgment passed by this Court ·as nullity or otherwise
incorrect ·cannot be entertained. "t wish to make it cleat that the
·dismissal of this writ petition will not prejudice the right of the
H petitioner, to approach the Court with an appropriate review
petition or to file any other application which be may be entitle<!
in law to file.
. .
•
A.R. ANT1JLAY v. UNION (Desai, J.) 483
DESAI, J. I broadly agree with the. conclusion recorded by A
my br9ther.
The learned Judge in deciding the S.L.P (Crl) Nos. 1149-50/
1984 has followed the decision of this Court: The learned Judge
· was perfectly justified and indeed it was the duty of th.e learned
' ')r Judge to follow the decision of this Court ·which is binding on · B
'" him.·
Special 'leave petitions are dismissed.
H.S.K. Petitions dismissed. c
•
•
•
•
. {
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.