The Supreme Court has emphasised that reopening concluded cases would disrupt the justice delivery system. It warned that such actions could lead to “chaos in the administration of justice,” stressing the importance of finality in litigation.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court asserted on Wednesday that the finality of litigation is a fundamental aspect of a robust judicial system, stating that “once a case has concluded, it cannot be reopened; otherwise, it would lead to chaos in the administration of justice.”
A bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed a writ petition filed by former employees of the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Limited, who sought pension benefits despite the matter having reached finality in a previous legal round in 2016.
The bench stated,
“It is crystal clear that the present writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. However, before parting with the record, we would like to emphasise and reiterate the principle of finality of an adjudication process. Finality of a list is a core facet of a sound judicial system. Litigation which had concluded or had reached finality cannot be reopened,”
The justices noted that a litigant dissatisfied with a decision from a special leave petition or a civil appeal can seek a review through the review jurisdiction and subsequently via a curative petition.
However, such a decision cannot be contested in a writ proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
The bench emphasized,
“If this is permitted, then there will be no finality and no end to litigation. There will be chaos in the administration of justice,”
They recalled a 2002 ruling in the case of Green View Tea and Industries Versus Collector, which indicated that the finality of a Supreme Court order should not be easily disturbed.
The bench highlighted that this important principle was reaffirmed in its 2011 ruling in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action versus Union of India.
They concluded,
“Thus, having regard to the discussions made above, we are of the unhesitant view that the present writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is wholly misconceived. The decision of this Court in Rajesh Chander Sood (2016 verdict) is clearly binding on the petitioners. That being the position, there is no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed,”
In 2018, three former employees of the forest corporation filed a writ petition under Article 32, contesting the denial of pension benefits under the Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees (Pension, Family Pension, Commutation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme, 1999, which had been discontinued via a notification on December 2, 2004.
This notification included exceptions for those who had opted into the scheme and retired before that date.
They sought a directive for the state government to grant them pension upon their retirement according to the scheme, comparable to similarly situated employees who retired before December 2, 2004, by recognizing their pensionable service from the date of joining to the date of retirement.
Also Read: “Safety is Paramount”: Delhi HC Criticizes State Departments Over Flyover Repairs
Previously, the issue of pension benefits had been raised by a group of former employees before the high court, which ruled in their favor in 2013, directing the state to provide pensions in accordance with the scheme. The state government challenged this decision, and in 2016, the Supreme Court reversed the high court’s order.
The 2018 writ petition sought the same relief, arguing that the 2016 verdict ignored several binding precedents and should be considered as in curiam (bad in law). On March 20, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a notice regarding the plea, and the matter was subsequently presented to a three-judge bench, questioning the validity of the earlier two-judge verdict from 2016.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
