Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Misc. Petition No. 10058 of 2008
In
Writ Petition (Crl.) D. No. 33998 of 2007
Harendra Jha .. Petitioner
Versus
Ministry of Law through
Secretary to Government of India .. Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
1. The petitioner in person has filed this petition.
2. We have carefully perused the petition and heard the
petitioner-in-person at length, but we found it difficult to
comprehend the real grievance of the petitioner against which
he has approached this court.
2
3. It appears from the cause title of the petition that the
petitioner perhaps is aggrieved by the Order dated 8.3.08
passed in Writ Petition No………. Diary No. 33998 of 2007 by
the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The order dated
8.3.2008 reads as follows:
“Mr. Harendra Jha, petitioner-in-person, has
on 22.11.07 filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No. bearing D.
No. 33998/07 seeking the following reliefs:
i) That the case may be put up before the nine
Judges Bench for final hearing.
ii) That Curative petition may be sustained with a
certificate from petitioner.
iii) That the Judges who decided & delivered the
earlier Judgment ought not be associated with
again in the proceeding to reconsider the same
judgment/decision.
iv) That the Curative Petition ought not to be
circulated to the Bench & may admitted after
hearing in open court.
v)
That in the event of petition found vexatious or
without merit an exemplary cost may be
imposed on petitioner, however on the
contrary if the earlier order found otherwise,
i.e. proved vexatious/harassing/biased or in
contravention to the doctrine of natural justice
& equity after deliberation & reconsideration,
the petitioner may be compensated by the
Court (?)
3
vi) That if the allegation of business brought
before your Lordship is proved/found justified,
and may passed order as prior to 1858 in
British regime in favour of public importance.
vii) That stay the further proceeding in Curative
Petition diary No. 11467 of 2007 pending
disposal of this writ petition and thereafter
direct to respondents to take application on
the certificate of the petitioner.
viii) That petitioner is a senior citizen & retired
primary school teacher with elementary
knowledge of English language having no
command over it & as such there is possibility
of hurting the feelings of your Lordship for
which the petitioner begs to be
pardoned/excused.
ix) That your Lordship pass such an order or
orders as deemed just & proper.”
It is seen from the averments made in the
petition that he has filed the Writ Petition
challenging the letter dated 18.04.07 issued by the
Registry intimating him the defects noticed in the
Curative Petition filed by him as Diary No.
11467/07 in Review Petition (Crl.) No. 909/05 in
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 266/05. It is also seen from
the records that since the petitioner-in-person did
not cure the mandatory defects noticed in the
Curative Petition, the same was lodged vide order
dated 04.12.07 passed by the Registrar.
In the instant Writ Petition, the petitioner has
challenged the requirements to be complied with by
him for moving a Curative Petition as provided in
paragraphs 51 and 52 of the decision reported in
Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr. (2002 (4)
4
SCC 388). He has alleged that the decision
rendered in Rupa Ashok Hurra’s case violates his
fundamental rights. He has also questioned the
necessity to obtain and produce a certificate from a
Senior Advocate with regard to the fulfillment of the
requirements specified in the said decision.
In this connection, it is relevant to mention
that Writ Petition 334/05 filed by Shiva Kant Jha
under Article 32 of the Constitution requesting this
Hon’ble Court to have a re-look and reconsideration
of the decision rendered by this Hon’ble Court in
Rupa Ashok Hurra’s case, was dismissed by this
Hon’ble Court vide order dated 28.11.07. In the
said order, this Hon’ble Court held as follows:
“We heard petitioner-in-person at
length and learned Additional Solicitor
General for India. Petitioner argued that
all final decisions of this Court are
subject to the remedy available under
Article 32 of the Constitution. Petitioner
contended that there may be occasions
where the decisions of this Court may
violate the fundamental rights of citizens
and under those circumstances, the
aggrieved should have remedy under
Article 32 of the Constitution against
such decisions. In support of his
contentions, he referred to the views of
several learned authors and the decisions
of English Courts. It is not necessary to
refer to them, as the question has been
exhaustively considered by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in Rupa
Ashok Hurra (supra).
5
Of course, the decision of this Court
could be reviewed and if necessary varied
in appropriate cases, as pointed out in
Rupa Ashok Hurra. The decision of an
earlier Bench could also be overruled by
a larger Bench. But we do not accept the
submission of the petitioner, that the
decision of this Court which has attained
finality could be subjected to judicial
review under Article 33 of the
Constitution, at the instance of one of the
parties to the decision. We find no merit
in the writ petition. The writ petition is
accordingly dismissed.”
This Hon’ble Court having held that the
decision of this Hon’ble Court which has attained
finality could not be subjected to judicial review
under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner
cannot be permitted to move a petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a review of
the decision rendered by this Hon’ble Court in Rupa
Ashok Hurra’s case. In paragraph 59 of the
judgment in Rupa Ashok Hurra’s case, reference
was made to the decision in Naresh Shridhar
Mirajkar and others v. State of Maharashtra and
another ((1966) 3 SCR 744), wherein it was held
that the remedy of writ jurisdiction under Article 32
of the Constitution is not available for the purpose
of issue of writ of certiorari to correct judicial orders
passed by or in relation to proceedings pending
before the Hon’ble High Courts. In the decision
reported in A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak and
another ((1988) 2 SCC 602), relying upon the nine
Judges Bench Judgment of this Hon’ble Court, it
was held by this Hon’ble Court that it must be
taken as concluded that the judicial proceedings in
this Court are not subjected to the writ jurisdiction
under Article 32 of the Constitution.
6
Since the petitioner-in-person failed to cure
the mandatory defects communicated to him, the
Curative Petition filed by the petitioner-in-person
was already lodged under Rules 6(3) and 6(4) of
Order X of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, vide
order dated 04.12.07 passed by the Registrar and
that was communicated to the petitioner vide
Registry’s letter dated 04.12.07. Therefore, he is
not justified in challenging the letter dated 18.04.07
sent by the Registry intimating him the defects in
the Curative Petition. The petitioner has thus not
made out any reasonable cause justifying
registration of the present petition purported to be
one filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, in the
light of the decision of this Hon’ble Court in Writ
Petition (C) No. 334/05.
For the reasons stated above, the Petition filed
by the petitioner-in-person bearing D. No.
33998/07, is hereby lodged under Rule 5 of Order
XVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
The petitioner-in-person may be informed
accordingly.
Sd/-
(T. Sivadasan)
Registrar (Judicial)
08.03.08”
4. In this petition, the petitioner has also annexed order
dated 4.12.07 passed by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
The same reads as follows:
“Mr. Harendra Jha, who was the petitioner in
W.P. (Cr) 266/2005 (D.No. 10507/05) has filed the
7
instant Curative Petition. On scrutiny, the curative
petition was found defective and the defects noted
were communicated to him vide this Registry’s
letters dated 18.4.07 and 18.9.07. Since the
defects were not cured, he was given further four
weeks time at last chance to cure the defects. The
same was intimated to him vide this Registry’s letter
dated 22.10.07, wherein the defects noticed, were
once again mentioned. He was informed that if he
fails to cure the defects within four weeks from the
date of the receipt of the letter, action as
contemplated under Rules 6(3) and 6(4) of Order X
of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 will be taken. It
is seen that instead of curing the defects pointed
out to him, the petitioner in person has stated in
his letter dated 23.11.07 that he has moved a Writ
Petition D. No. 33998/07 on 22.11.07 challenging
the validity of the order passed in Rupa Ashok
Hurrah case and that proceedings may be stayed
till the disposal of the said writ petition.
On perusal of the records, it is seen that W.P.
(Cr) D. 10507/05 filed by the petitioner in person
was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court on 22.8.05
and the Review Petition No. 909/05 filed by him
was also dismissed by this Hon’ble Court vide order
dated 31.8.095. Since the petitioner in person has
failed to cure the defects communicated to him in
spite of the several opportunities given to him, and
since some of the defects noticed are mandatory in
nature, action as contemplated under Rules 6(3)
and 6(4) of Order X of the Supreme Court Rules,
1966 is taken and I decline to register the instant
curative petition.
The petitioner in person may be informed
accordingly.
Sd/-
(T. Sivadasan)
8
Registrar (Judicial)
4.12.07”
5. When the matter came up for hearing before this court,
we gave a patient hearing to the petitioner-in-person and
permitted him to argue at length in order to ascertain his
grievance. Unfortunately, neither in the petition nor in his
oral submissions, he could articulate what directions he
wants from the court.
6. The petitioner-in-person has placed reliance on a
Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Election
Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao AIR 1953 SC 210
and brought to our notice that the makers of the Constitution,
having decided to provide for certain basic safeguards for the
people in the new set up, which they called fundamental
rights, evidently thought it necessary to provide also a quick
and inexpensive remedy for the enforcement of such rights.
There is no quarrel with this legal preposition but we fail to
comprehend how this case can in any manner help the
petitioner.
9
7. In this petition, we cannot give any direction. The
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and the Writ Petition being
devoid of any merit are accordingly dismissed.
..….….…………………….. J.
(Dalveer Bhandari)
……….…………………….. J.
(Harjit Singh Bedi)
New Delhi;
August 26, 2008.