The Supreme Court clarifies that a judicial decision does not offend any Fundamental Right, dismissing a misconceived writ petition and reaffirming the finality of judicial rulings in India.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On September 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India emphatically reiterated that a judicial decision cannot be said to offend any Fundamental Right, while dismissing a writ petition that sought reconsideration of its earlier ruling on the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008.
The case was heard by a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, who not only dismissed the petition but also imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on the petitioners, directing that the amount be paid to a society or organisation working for children afflicted with cancer.
ALSO READ: Administrative Tribunals Occupy a Unique Space Between Executive and Judiciary: CJI Gavai
Background of the Case
The writ petition was filed by the Managing Committee of Contai Rahamania High Madrasah along with Sk. Mahammad Abdur Rahaman (whose locus standi was itself questionable). The petitioners invoked Article 32 of the Constitution, contending that the January 6, 2020 judgment, wherein a division bench upheld the validity of the 2008 Act, violated Article 30, which guarantees minority institutions the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
The petitioners also argued that the 2020 judgment effectively overruled a 1974 Constitution Bench ruling and therefore required reconsideration by a larger bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice of India.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court, while dismissing a recent writ petition, made it emphatically clear that no judicial decision can be said to infringe any Fundamental Right. The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih described the petition as a “misconceived writ petition”, highlighting that it sought to re-litigate issues already conclusively decided.
The Court noted that the petitioners’ reliance on the recent Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India (2025) decision was misplaced, emphasizing that the case concerned capital punishment and not the reconsideration of a statute already upheld. It observed:
“Vasanta Sampat Dupare would not apply to a case of the present nature where this Court, in Sk. Mohd. Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai High Madrasah (2020), upon threadbare consideration of the rival contentions, declared the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 to be constitutionally valid.”
The bench further held that the plea that the 2020 decision violated Article 30 was untenable, citing the authoritative nine-judge Constitution Bench ruling in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1967):
“A judicial decision does not offend any Fundamental Right.”
The Court’s observations underline that judicial finality is paramount, and settled legal issues cannot be reopened under the guise of Fundamental Rights.
The Supreme Court found the writ petition to be not maintainable, dismissing it with exemplary costs. The ₹1 lakh fine must be paid within one month to a society/organisation caring for children suffering from cancer, as directed by the Court.
Case Title:
The Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah & Anr Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 878 OF 2025
Read Order: