The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark ruling, reaffirmed that judgments delivered by a High Court cannot be declared illegal under Article 32 of the Constitution. The judgment came in response to a writ petition filed by Vimal Babu Dhumadiya and others against the State of Maharashtra and other parties, seeking to invalidate a Bombay High Court ruling.
The petitioners argued that the High Court judgment was issued without adequately hearing them and sought its declaration as illegal. They also requested a survey of the disputed land on which their apartments were built, regularization of these apartments, and protection from eviction.
The three-judge bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta, dismissed the petition while emphasizing the constitutional limits of Article 32. The Court clarified that this article provides a remedy for enforcing fundamental rights, not for declaring High Court judgments illegal.
Background
The dispute centered on allegations that the petitioners’ apartments were constructed on government land. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s ruling, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court, bypassing other available remedies, such as filing a recall application or a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136.
Key Observations
The Supreme Court underscored that Article 32 cannot be invoked to invalidate a High Court’s judgment. It further elaborated on the available remedies for parties dissatisfied with a High Court decision:
- Filing a petition for recall of the judgment before the High Court.
- Challenging the judgment through a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 before the Supreme Court.
The Court also noted that the petitioners had previously filed an SLP, which had been dismissed. Additionally, their interlocutory application for modification of the High Court’s judgment had been rejected.
Ruling
The bench concluded that Article 32 is not a valid avenue for declaring High Court judgments illegal. It reaffirmed that if the petitioners felt aggrieved, they should explore alternative remedies as per the Constitution.
The judgment emphasized:
"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 challenge the same by way of a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution before this Court."
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition while leaving the door open for the petitioners to pursue lawful alternatives. All related applications were also disposed of.
Cause Title: Vimal Babu Dhumadiya & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 77
