Abdul Rehman Antulay vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc
- Neutral1984 INSC 85
- AIRAIR 1984 SC 1358
- SCR[1984] 3 SCR 482
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of an order or judgment passed by the Supreme Court itself cannot be entertained; the appropriate remedy available to a party aggrieved by a Supreme Court order is a review petition or such other application as may be provided by law. All courts are bound by and must follow the decisions of the Supreme Court, and a court exercising appellate jurisdiction is justified and duty-bound to apply the binding precedent of the Supreme Court to the matter before it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
ACT: Constitution of India Art. 141-Duty of all courts to follow decision of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Rules-Whether Supreme Court can entertain writ petition against its own order and judgment.
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL & CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Crl) No. 708 of 1984.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) And Special Leave Petition (Crl) Nos. 1949-50 of 1984 (From the Judgment and Order dated 13.3.84 and 16.3.84 of the Bombay High Court in Special Case Nos. 24/82 & 3/83) Murli Bhandare, Govinddas, Ms. Bina Gupta, H.R. Bhardwaj and PP. Singh for the petitioner.
Ram Jethmalani, Ashok Desai and Ms. Rani Jethmalani for the respondents.
The Order of the Court was delivered by AMARENDRA NATH SEN, J. There is no merit in this Writ Petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
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.
483 DESAI, J. I broadly agree with the conclusion recorded by my brother.
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 the learned Judge to follow the decision of this Court which is binding on him.
Special leave petitions are dismissed.
H.S.K. Petitions dismissed. 484
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free