Can a Writ Petition Be Filed Against a Judgment? Apex Court Says No, Imposes Rs. 1 Lakh Cost
Supreme Court dismisses petition seeking to undo its earlier judgment on minority schools
The Supreme Court has reiterated that no writ petition can be filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court itself, terming such an attempt as the “grossest abuse of the process of law and of the court”.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan dismissed a writ petition filed by United Voice for Education Forum, imposing a cost of Rs one lakh on the petitioner.
The organisation had approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction declaring that the exemption granted to minority educational institutions from the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was unconstitutional. The exemption had earlier been upheld by the Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs Union of India (2014), and the petitioner argued that it granted blanket immunity from RTE obligations.
The petitioner also sought a direction that all minority educational institutions, whether aided or unaided, be required to comply with reasonable regulatory provisions under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, 2009 to ensure quality, inclusivity and accountability. In addition, it requested the constitution of an expert committee to recommend a balanced framework reconciling the rights of minorities under Article 30 with the State’s obligation under Article 21A.
After examining the prayers made in the petition, the bench observed that, in substance, the petitioner was seeking to undo a judgment of the Supreme Court by filing a writ petition, which is wholly impermissible in law.
Court underscored that no writ petition is maintainable against a judgment of the Supreme Court.
Calling it the “grossest abuse of the process of law and of this court”, the bench dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to pay a cost of Rs 1,00,000 to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.
Court, however, said that it was refraining from issuing any notice to the petitioner with regard to contempt proceedings that could otherwise have been initiated.
Case Title: United Voice for Education Forum Vs Union of India
Bench: Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan