The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment delivered on April 16, 2025, held that a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be used to challenge its own judgments. This reaffirmation of judicial finality came in a case involving retired employees of the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Limited, who sought to reopen a previous Supreme Court ruling that had denied them pension benefits.
The bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that once the Supreme Court has rendered a decision—whether under a Special Leave Petition or post-grant of leave under Article 136—the only legal remedies available to an aggrieved party are to file a review petition and, if unsuccessful, to invoke curative jurisdiction, strictly as per the prescribed legal requirements.
“A litigant who is aggrieved by a decision rendered by this Court... can seek its review... and thereafter through a curative petition. But such a decision cannot be assailed in a writ proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution of India,”
— Supreme Court observed
Read Also:- SC Warns Telangana: Restore 100 Acres Of Kancha Gachibowli Forest Or Officers Face Jail
Background of the Case
The case, titled Satish Chander Sharma & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., involved three retired officials of the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation. They approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, seeking enforcement of pension rights under the 1999 Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees Pension Scheme, which had been repealed by the state government in 2004.
The petitioners contended that the earlier ruling in the case of State of H.P. vs. Rajesh Chander Sood (2016) 10 SCC 77—which upheld the withdrawal of the pension scheme—was rendered per incuriam, i.e., in ignorance of binding precedents like the landmark D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) judgment that disapproved arbitrary cut-off dates in pension policies.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, delivering the judgment, meticulously examined the facts, including the corporate structure of the petitioners' employer, their retirement timelines, and the evolution and subsequent repeal of the 1999 Scheme.
Read Also:- Justice Sanjiv Khanna Recommends Justice BR Gavai as the Next Chief Justice of India
The Court highlighted that the 1999 Scheme was introduced to extend pension benefits to corporate employees, aligning them with government employees. However, it was later repealed in 2004 after a high-level committee found it financially unsustainable.
The petitioners challenged the cut-off date of December 2, 2004, which limited benefits only to those who retired before that date, arguing it created an unconstitutional classification. However, the Court reaffirmed that this matter had already been decided in Rajesh Chander Sood, where the policy decision of the State Government to repeal the scheme was found to be legally valid and non-arbitrary.
“This Court had given elaborate reasons... including upholding the cut-off date... Merely because the petitioners disagree does not render it per incuriam.”
— Supreme Court stated
The Court firmly rejected the attempt to reopen a concluded judgment via Article 32. It referred to various precedents, including:
- Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra
- Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra
- Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India
These decisions have consistently held that Supreme Court judgments cannot be challenged through writ petitions, and the only remedies are through review and curative mechanisms.
“If this is permitted, then there will be no finality and no end to litigation. There will be chaos in the administration of justice,”
— Court emphasized
Read Also:- SC Proposes Interim Order to Protect Court-Declared Waqf Properties Amid Waqf Amendment Act Challenge
Dismissing the writ petition as “wholly misconceived”, the Court concluded:
“The decision of this Court in Rajesh Chander Sood is clearly binding on the petitioners. That being the position, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.”
In a considerate gesture, the Court refrained from imposing costs, noting the petitioners were retired senior citizens.
Case Title: SATISH CHANDER SHARMA & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Varma, AOR Ms. Adyasha Nanda, Adv. Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Prakash Pathak, Adv. Mr. Nishant Kumar, AOR Mr. Rajesh Inamdar, Adv. Mr. Ajay Desai, Adv. Mr. Revanta Solanki, Adv. Mr. Abhyudaya Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Gopal Prasad, AOR Ms. Shalya Agarwal, Adv.
