Today, On 12th December, A tense moment arose in the Supreme Court when an NGO filed a writ petition seeking to overturn one of the Court’s own judgments. The Bench warned the petitioner, saying, “Let this serve as a message. You cannot try to crumble the judiciary of this country.”
New Delhi: A sharp and tense moment unfolded in the Supreme Court during the hearing of a writ petition filed by an NGO that asked the Court to set aside one of its own earlier judgments.
The Bench came down strongly on the petitioner and made it clear that such filings directly harm the foundation of the judicial system.
During the hearing, Justice BV Nagarathna expressed strong displeasure, saying,
“You cannot do this to the Supreme Court. We are enraged. If petitions like this start coming, it shakes the entire judicial system. You don’t understand the seriousness of what you’ve filed. We are limiting the cost to Rs.1 lakh. Don’t pull down the judiciary by bringing such matters. Are advocates advising this? We may have to take action against the lawyers. You are educated, law aware citizens and you file an Article 32 petition against a Supreme Court judgment? This is the grossest abuse. We are restraining ourselves by not issuing contempt.”
The Court noted that an Article 32 petition cannot be used as a method to challenge a final judgment of the Supreme Court.
The Bench said that this act amounted to a complete misuse of constitutional remedies and a direct attack on judicial discipline.
After issuing strong remarks, the Court imposed costs of Rs.1 lakh on the petitioner for filing what it described as a grossly inappropriate petition.
The Court further added a cautionary message for future litigants.
The Bench stated,
“Let this serve as a message. You cannot try to crumble the judiciary of this country.”
With this, the Supreme Court concluded that such petitions not only waste judicial time but also undermine the entire structure of justice delivery.
The writ petition requested a declaration that the exemption granted to minority educational institutions, upheld in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India, is unconstitutional to the extent that it provides them with blanket immunity from the obligations under the Right to Education (RTE) Act.
The plea further urged that all minority institutions, whether receiving aid or not, should be mandated to comply with Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, which ensures quality, inclusivity, and accountability by reserving 25 percent of seats at the entry level for children from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups.
Additionally, it called for the establishment of an expert committee to propose a balanced framework that reconciles Article 30, which upholds the right of minorities to establish and manage educational institutions of their choice, with Article 21A (the right to education).
Notably, the NGO approached the Court just three months after a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan raised questions regarding the Constitution Bench’s ruling in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India.
Expressing their reservations about that decision, the Court recommended that a larger bench make a determination.
The Court had opined,
“Exemption of minority institutions from the RTE Act leads to fragmentation of the common schooling vision and weakening of the idea of inclusivity and universality envisioned by Article 21A. We are afraid, instead of uniting children across caste, class, creed, and community, it reinforces ‘divides’ and ‘dilutes’ the transformative potential of shared learning spaces,”
Click Here to Read More Reports on Justice BV Nagarathna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
