RES JUDICATA AND WRIT PETITIONS

On 22nd March, 2019, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated that the principle of res judicata as provided by section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is applicable to writ petitions as well. The observation was given by the Court in view of P. Bandopadhya vs. Union of India, a judgment of Bombay High Court which was challenged before the Apex Court. The impugned judgment was passed in a writ petition filed by former employees in the Overseas Communications Service [“OCS”], a Department of the Government of India. The High Court dismissed their petition, while holding that the matter was squarely covered by the earlier decision of a Division Bench of the High Court in S.V. Vasaikar v. Union of India.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court view and observed that the decision in S.V. Vasaikar was not challenged before the Supreme Court, and had thus attained finality. While dismissing the appeal, the bench observed that, “Albeit the decision of the Constitution Bench was in the context of a Writ Petition filed under Article 32, it would apply with greater force to bar a Writ Petition filed under Article 226, like the one filed by the present Appellants, by the operation of the principle of res judicata.”
Res Judicata is a phrase which has been evolved from a Latin maxim, which stand for ‘the thing has been judged’, meaning there by that the issue before the court has already been decided by another court, between the same parties. Therefore, the court will dismiss the case before it as being useless. Res Judicata as a concept is applicable both in case of Civil as well as Criminal legal system.
Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure deals with this very concept. It embodies the doctrine of Res Judicata or the rule of conclusiveness of a judgement, as to the points decided either of fact, or of law, or of fact and law, in every subsequent suit between the same parties. It enacts that once a matter is finally decided by a competent court; no party can be permitted to reopen it in a subsequent litigation. In the absence of such a rule there will be no end to litigation and the parties would be put to constant trouble, harassment and expenses.
The Supreme Court has every now and then held the principle of res judicata to be applicable on writ petitions. In Daryao v State of UP, the Supreme Court held that “on general considerations of the public policy, there seems to be no reason why the principle of res judicata should be treated as inadmissible or irrelevant in dealing with the petitions filed under article 32 of the Constitution.”
Similarly, in District Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, the court has held that, “it is well established that the principles of Res Judicata are applicable to writ petitions.”
Thus, the court has again reiterated the point it has made in various earlier decisions and the same helps to bring the matter to a final end.

By-
Deeksha Gupta
Student Reporter- INBA