In the 1961 decision of daryao vs state of up Others AIR, the Supreme Court elevated the concept of res judicata to a higher plane and established the judgment’s binding nature. The primary question in this case concerned whether a petition under article 226 of the indian constitution of 1950, which the High Court had rejected, would be permitted to be heard under article 32 of the indian constitution by the Supreme Court.
daryao vs state of up Case Facts
- Long-term tenants of the land, the petitioners were forced to leave in July 1947 owing to communal disturbance. When they returned in November 1947, they discovered that the respondents had seized unlawful control of the property.
- They were successful in suing for eviction in 1948, but the respondents’ 1954 victory stemmed from the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act of 1953, which was upheld by the Board of Revenue on the respondents’ appeal.
- After the court affirmed the modified Act, the petitioners withdrew their following appeal under article 226 of the indian constitution to the Allahabad High Court, which led to the petition’s dismissal on March 29, 1955.
- Under these circumstances, the petitioners filed a petition under article 32 of the indian constitution with the Supreme Court on March 14, 1956. The respondents said that the current petition is barred by res judicata because it was evident that the grounds for filing a challenge against the Board’s judgment were the same as the ones they had claimed in their prior appeal before the Allahabad High Court.
daryao vs state of up Issues
The petitioners contended that cases involving fundamental rights are not covered by the res judicata principle when they filed the case with the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 32(1).
In this case, the following concerns were brought up:
- Can a case that the High Court dismissed or found to have merit be brought before the Supreme Court using the same reasoning?
- Whether instances involving basic rights would fall under the purview of the res judicata principle?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Res Judicata, according to petitioners’ attorney Mr. Agarwal, is only a technical rule akin to the estoppels rule; it cannot be applied to reject a petition that aims to protect the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
- Article 32(1) guarantees the right to petition the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. This right is regarded as fundamental in and of itself, and it would be unacceptable to restrict it by using the res judicata legal doctrine.
Respondent:
- The Punjab Advocate-General contended that, rather than granting individuals the automatic right to file a petition, Article 32(1) of the Indian Constitution gives citizens the right to approach the Supreme Court through suitable proceedings, such as an appeal or an application for special leave petition under Article 136. He pointed out that the leave provision is optional and does not require the Court to offer redress, much like Articles 226 and 32.
- Res Judicata, which is founded on public policy and is defined in Section 11 of the CPC, guarantees the finality of court rulings in order to avoid needless litigation. The aforementioned premise is applicable to petitions pertaining to basic rights under Article 32. Reiterating that res judicata applies to matters decided after full contest, regardless of the original tribunal’s authority over future proceedings or the precise subject matter, Sinha, C.J. cited the case of Raj Lakshmi Dasi v. Banamali Sen.
- He underlined that Article 226 gives High Courts the same authority that Article 32 does for the Supreme Court, meaning that a decision made by a High Court under Article 226 applies to Article 32 petitions as Res Judicata.
daryao vs state of up Judgment
- According to the Supreme Court, the bench is certain that the petitioners’ attack on the contested statute, which took the shape of a change, will not impact the actual legal position that the Allahabad High Court determined and resolved.
- It was mentioned that the writ petition was filed on the identical grounds and against the same statute as the one that had been previously submitted in the high court writ petition. As a result, filing a petition under article 32 of the indian constitution is prohibited by the High Court’s ruling about the merits of the petitioner’s writ petition under article 226 of the indian constitution.
- As a result, it was determined that the petition was unsuccessful and was dismissed; no costs order was issued.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
