The Supreme Court has warned lower courts against issuing “surprise” directions that exceed the scope of litigants’ pleadings. The ruling emphasizes judicial restraint and protects citizens’ right to fair access to justice.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a judgment reaffirming the principles of natural justice and judicial restraint, the Supreme Court of India has cautioned courts against issuing “surprise directions” that go beyond the issues raised or reliefs sought by litigants in their petitions.
The apex court observed that such unexpected judicial interventions could have a chilling effect on access to justice, discouraging citizens from approaching courts for fear of being rendered worse off than before.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a long-standing dispute between the Cochin Devaswom Board and representatives of the Chinmaya Mission Educational and Cultural Trust over the enhancement of licence fees for a plot of land in Thrissur.
In 1974, the Board allocated 13.5 acres of land to the Trust for the construction of a hall to host religious, cultural, and wedding events. The Trust was required to make the hall available free of cost for Devaswom programmes and pilgrims.
The annual licence fee was initially ₹101 and later raised to ₹227.25 in 1977, after which it remained unchanged for decades.
Fast forward to 2014, the Devaswom Board unilaterally increased the fee to ₹1.5 lakh per annum and demanded arrears exceeding ₹20 lakh. The Trust challenged this before the Kerala High Court.
The Kerala High Court’s Decision
While the High Court upheld the fee hike, it went a step further — directing the Devaswom Board to refix the licence fee and initiate a vigilance inquiry into the original land allotment to the Trust.
These directions were not sought in the Trust’s writ petition and, therefore, took the petitioners by surprise.
Feeling aggrieved, the Trust approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court agreed with the Trust’s contention that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by making directions beyond the scope of the case.
The Bench noted:
“If, without putting parties on notice, the court travels beyond the scope of the petition, takes parties by surprise and makes any strong observations and directions, it will create a chilling effect on other prospective litigants too.”
The Court emphasized that litigants approach courts to vindicate their rights, and they should not be left worse off for doing so. Unexpected or unrelated directions can discourage individuals from seeking justice, undermining the rule of law itself.
The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court’s directions ordering:
- Refixation of the licence fee, and
- A vigilance probe into the land allotment.
These portions were expunged from the High Court’s judgment.
However, the Supreme Court clarified:
“If the respondent-Board has legitimate rights to enhance the licence fee, they may do so independently and in accordance with law.”
Appearance:
For the appellant: Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal and Advocates NK Unnikrishnan, Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Santhosh K, Devika AI and Smita Amratlal Vora
For the respondent: Senior Advocate PV Dinesh and Advocates PS Sudheer, Anna Oommen, Rishi Maheshwari, Anne Mathew, Bharat Sood, Jai Govind MJ, Jashan Vir Singh, Harshad V Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot, Ashly Harshad, Mahabir Singh and Anshul Saharan
Case Title:
P. Radhakrishnan & Anr. v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11902 OF 2025
Read Judgment: