top of page

A High Court Judgment Cannot Be Declared Illegal’ – Analysing the Supreme Court’s Stand on Procedural Remedies

Summary


Case Name: Vimal Babu Dhumadiya & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date of Judgment: 17th January 2025

Judges: Hon'ble Justice Vikram Nath, Hon'ble Justice Sanjay Karol, Hon'ble Justice Sandeep Mehta

Relevant Acts and Sections: Article 32 and Article 136 of the Constitution of India

Cited Judgments:

  1. Judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 833 of 2019 (dated 25th July 2024).

  2. Supreme Court's dismissal of SLP (C) D No. 59459 of 2024 (dated 20th December 2024).

Introduction


The recent Supreme Court judgment in Vimal Babu Dhumadiya & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. highlights the judiciary's emphasis on procedural discipline and the correct invocation of constitutional remedies. Delivered on 17th January 2025 by a bench comprising Hon'ble Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, the judgment arose from a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners sought relief against a Bombay High Court decision alleging procedural impropriety and sought the regularisation of disputed properties. However, the Supreme Court reiterated the need to exhaust alternative remedies before invoking its jurisdiction, dismissing the petition on procedural grounds. This judgment serves as a critical reminder for legal professionals in India about the hierarchy of judicial remedies and the importance of adhering to procedural protocols while safeguarding fundamental rights. It underscores the Court's role in balancing justice and judicial propriety.


Background of the Case


The petitioners, Vimal Babu Dhumadiya and others, sought redress under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The primary reliefs prayed for included the declaration of a Bombay High Court judgment (dated 25th July 2024) as illegal for allegedly being rendered without hearing the necessary parties. Additionally, the petitioners sought regularization of their apartments built on disputed land and an injunction against interference with their property rights until the proper legal process was followed.

The genesis of the matter lies in the High Court's order, which dismissed the petitioners' claims concerning ownership rights over government land. This order was challenged through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, which was subsequently dismissed on 20th December 2024. A subsequent interlocutory application to modify the High Court's judgment was also dismissed.


Core Issues Raised


  1. Procedural Violation Alleged: The petitioners contended that the High Court's judgment was illegal as it was delivered without providing them an opportunity to be heard.

  2. Rights to Regularisation and Protection: The petitioners sought the regularization of their apartments and protection from dispossession.

Observations of the Supreme Court


  1. Jurisdiction under Article 32: The Court categorically held that the powers under Article 32, while expansive, do not encompass the declaration of a judgment by the High Court as illegal. The petitioners were advised to explore other remedies available under law, such as filing an application for the recall of the High Court's order or challenging it under Article 136.

    "In our considered opinion, under Article 32 of the Constitution, the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay cannot be declared as illegal."

  2. Dismissal on Procedural Grounds: The Court dismissed the writ petition, noting that the petitioners had not exhausted their alternative remedies. The dismissal was premised on the well-established principle of judicial propriety, wherein a higher court refrains from intervening unless the litigant has pursued all available avenues.

  3. Judicial Restraint: In dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court upheld the principle of judicial restraint, emphasizing that it cannot act as a court of first instance for grievances that arise from procedural or factual disputes.


Key Takeaways


  1. Primacy of Procedural Adherence:The judgment underscores the necessity of adhering to established procedural mechanisms before approaching the apex court. Article 32, while fundamental, cannot be misused as a substitute for other remedies.

  2. Alternative Remedies First:The Supreme Court reiterated its stance that Article 136 of the Constitution is the appropriate recourse for challenging High Court judgments. Filing a petition for recall or review at the High Court is another viable option that litigants must consider before seeking constitutional remedies.

    "If the petitioners have not been heard and are affected by the said judgment, the remedy available to them is to either file a petition/application for recall of the said order/judgment or to challenge the same by way of a petition under Article 136."

  3. Judicial Economy:By directing litigants to pursue alternative remedies, the Court effectively safeguards judicial resources and ensures that its constitutional jurisdiction is invoked only in exceptional circumstances.


Implications


  1. Strategic Litigation:This judgment serves as a reminder for legal practitioners to carefully evaluate and exhaust alternative remedies before filing writ petitions under Article 32. Proper legal strategy not only saves time but also aligns with the court's expectations of procedural compliance.

  2. Balancing Rights and Procedures:While the Indian Constitution guarantees fundamental rights, this case highlights the balance that must be maintained between safeguarding these rights and respecting procedural propriety. Legal professionals must emphasize this balance while advising clients.

  3. Responsibility of High Courts:Although the petitioners alleged procedural violations by the High Court, the Supreme Court's refusal to interfere reinforces the autonomy and finality of High Court judgments, barring exceptional circumstances.


Conclusion


The dismissal of this writ petition reiterates the judiciary's emphasis on procedural propriety and the non-substitution of constitutional remedies for statutory alternatives. Legal professionals must view this ruling as a precedent that consolidates the judicial hierarchy and procedural discipline.

The judgment also serves as a cautionary tale for litigants who, in their zeal to seek justice, may inadvertently overlook established legal pathways. As aptly noted in the legal maxim, "Justice hurried is justice buried."

Comments


BharatLaw.AI is revolutionising the way lawyers research cases. We have built a fantastic platform that can help you save up to 90% of your time in your research. Signup is free, and we have a free forever plan that you can use to organise your research. Give it a try.

bottom of page