The article is written by Clara D’costa. This article contains the main instances of the Daryao vs. State of U.P. and Ors. Wherein the Supreme Court placed the provision of Res Judicata in a high position. The contentions discussed in this case are mentioned in detail, including the issues raised, arguments of the parties, judgement, and the rationale behind the judgement. This article speaks about the principle of Res Judicata, which was the main aspect of this judgement, along with the provisions for issuing writs under the Constitution of India by the High Court and Supreme Court, respectively.

Introduction 

The case of Daryao vs. State of U.P. & Others AIR (1961) (hereinafter referred to as “the case”) saw the Supreme Court place the principle of Res Judicata on a higher level and was considered to be a binding character of the judgement. The main issue in this case revolved around whether a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950, which was dismissed by the High Court, would be admissible before the Supreme Court under Article 32. The principle of Res Judicata given under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Article 32, and Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950, are the relevant laws that proved to be essential in deciding this case. 

The principle of Res Judicata bars parties from filing a suit that has already been decided. However, it was not considered in terms of writ petitions that concerned the fundamental rights of a citizen under the Constitution, which offered limited scope to the principle.

Download Now

The Supreme Court, in this case, however, held that if the writ petition filed by a party was dismissed by the High Court, a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the same case on the same issue would constitute Res Judicata. The party cannot file a petition before the Supreme Court for the same contentions that were rejected by the High Court unless it is modified, altered, reversed, or allowed specifically by the Supreme Court.

Details of the case 

  • Case name: Daryao vs. State of UP
  • Petition numbers: 66 and 67 of 1956, 8 of 1960, 77 of 1957, 15 of 1957, and 5 of 1958
  • Type of case: Issue Writ Petition
  • Name of the Court: Supreme Court of India
  • Bench: Chief Justice B.P. Sinha, Justice A.K. Sarkar, Justice J.R. Mudholkar, Justice K. Subha Rao, Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar
  • Date of the judgement: 27th March 1961
  • Equivalent Citations: AIR 1961 SC 1457, 1961 SCR (1) 362
  • Name of the Parties: 

Petitioners: Daryao and others

respondents: State of U.P. and others (connected petitions)

Facts of Daryao vs. State of U.P. (1961)

This case played a pivotal role in establishing and clarifying legal principles concerning Res Judicata, contributing significantly to the jurisprudence in this area. The petitioners and their ancestors had leased out land in the Western District of Uttar Pradesh, as was described in Annexure A, which was attached to the petition.

The petitioners and their families were compelled to flee their village in July 1947 amidst communal disturbances in the district. Upon their return in November 1947, they were dismayed to find that the respondents had taken unlawful possession of their land. Despite earnestly demanding the return of their property upon their arrival, the respondents adamantly refused to comply.

The annexure further outlined that the respondents had claimed proprietorship of the land for the past fifty years. Despite having a rightful claim to the property and attempting to regain it upon their return, they encountered resistance and rejection from the respondents, worsening their situation. Despite earnestly demanding the return of their property upon their arrival, the respondents adamantly refused to comply.

The petitioners, therefore, filed civil suits in 1948 under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, for ejectment and to obtain possession over the said land. The Trial Court passed a decree in the favour of the petitioners and granted the ejectment of the respondents. The respondents then appealed before the Additional Commissioner, who affirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court and the petitioners obtained possession of the land through the Court. The respondents, thereafter, filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue under Section 267 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. 

The Board of Revenue allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners. The Board of Revenue stated that respondents 3 to 5 had become entitled to the possession of the land in dispute by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act XVI of the year 1953.

The petitioners further filed a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Allahabad to quash the judgement given by the Board of Revenue. However, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court had interpreted Section 20 of the U.P. Land Reform Acts as amended by Act XVI of 1953. As the effect of the decision was plainly against the contentions of the petitioners, the learned advocate representing the petitioners was left with no option but to not press the petition before the High Court. Therefore, the High Court at Allahabad dismissed this petition on 29th March 1955.

Due to this, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on 14th March 1956. The respondents further contended that the petitioners in the writ petition had relied upon grounds that were precisely the same as contained in the petition that was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court.

The limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under Article 136 against the dismissal of the petition of the petitioner before the High Court of Allahabad had already expired. Thus, the respondents urged that the petition before the Supreme Court was barred by the principle of Res Judicata.

Issues raised in the case 

The petitioners brought the petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32(1) by stating that the principle of Res Judicata does not apply to cases that are concerned with fundamental rights.

The issues raised in this case were as follows:

  • Whether a case dismissed or determined on merit by the High Court be filed in the Supreme Court on the same grounds?
  • Whether the principle of Res Judicata would apply in cases involving fundamental rights? 

Arguments of parties in Daryao vs. State of U.P. (1961) 

Petitioners 

The counsel for the petitioners, Advocate Agarwal, contended that the principle of Res Judicata is similar to the rule of estoppel, and thus, it cannot be applied against a petition that is filed for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of a citizen. It was further argued that the provision of Article 32 grants citizens the right to file a petition before the Supreme Court to safeguard their fundamental rights. Therefore, it shouldn’t be undermined or dismissed solely based on the strict application of the Res Judicata rule, which could restrict its consideration or relevance in this context.

The petitioners rejected the argument by the respondents, which claimed that Article 32 does not grant citizens the right to approach this Court through an original petition. Instead, it allegedly grants them the right to approach the Supreme Court through an appropriate proceeding, depending on the nature of the case at hand. This was considered to be an unsound argument by the petitioner, and their legal counsel stated that a proceeding could be considered appropriate depending upon the order or writ claimed by the party and the right granted to the citizen to move the Court. 

It was further argued that in a petition wherein the writ petition under Article 226 is dismissed by the High Court, the remedy that lies to the petitioner is to file a special leave petition under Article 136, which is the fair construction of the term “appropriate proceedings” under Article 32(1).

Respondents 

The counsel for the respondents argued that Article 32 does not grant a citizen the right to move this Court by an ‘original petition’ but rather grants the right to move the Supreme Court by an ‘appropriate proceeding’ according to the nature of the concerned case. The counsel further argued that the right to move, which was granted by the Constitution under Article 32(1), did not impose an obligation on the Supreme Court to grant relief as in the case of articles 226 and 32, the granting of leave is discretionary.

It was further contended that if the petition was dismissed or decided on merit by the High Court, the petitioner would be barred from filing a petition with the same issues and subject matter before the Supreme Court. 

The counsel for the respondent remained firm on their argument that unless the decision of the High Court is modified, altered, or reversed by an appeal or any other proceedings, therefore the judgement given by the High Court of Allahabad cannot be ignored by either of the parties. The judgement given by the High Court is final, and neither of the parties can ignore the judgement of the High Court of Allahabad and move the petition to the Supreme Court.

The respondents further argued that Article 32(1) grants a fundamental right that is significant in protecting the rights of citizens, and it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to uphold the same in this case. Further, they stated that the rule of Res Judicata is based on putting the public interest at large, and thus, the decision of the High Court under Article 226 should be a bar for the petition. They stated that as the matter was decided on merits in the High Court through a competent court by appropriate proceedings, it should be compulsorily binding on the parties unless it is modified or altered due to an appeal by the aggrieved party or reversed by the High Court.

Laws and concepts involved in Daryao vs. State of U.P. (1961)

Article 32 of the Constitution of India

Article 32 gives a citizen of India the right to move the Supreme Court by proceedings that are appropriate for the enforcement of the rights conferred by part III of the Constitution of India. This Article specifically grants power to the Supreme Court to issue orders, directions, or writs. Writs here include habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari.

The writ that was filed by the petitioners in the case was the writ of certiorari, wherein the court, with a higher authority, reviews the decision of the lower court.

Additionally, it is stated that the Parliament can authorise any other court, without prejudice to the powers granted to the Supreme Court, to exercise jurisdiction within the local area as specified in Article 32(2). Further, the rights that are given by this Article cannot be revoked or suspended unless explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of India.

Article 32 (1) of the Constitution of India 

Article 32 (1) states that citizens have the right to move the Supreme Court by an appropriate proceeding according to the nature of the concerned case. This was one of the arguments that were put forth by the counsel representing the respondents in the case.

The counsel representing the respondents stated that Article 32 does not grant a citizen the right to move this Court by an original petition but rather grants the right to plainly move the Supreme Court by an appropriate proceeding according to the nature of the concerned case. This was considered to be an unsound argument by the petitioner, and their legal counsel stated that a proceeding could be considered appropriate depending upon the order or writ claimed by the party and the right granted to the citizen to move the Court.

Article 136 of the Constitution of India 

This Article speaks about the discretionary power granted to the Supreme Court of India to grant special leave to appeal from any decree, sentence, judgement, order, or determination in any matter or any cause that was passed or made by any tribunal or court in India. It comes with an exception to any decree, sentence, judgement, order, or determination in any matter or any cause that was passed or made by any tribunal or court in India under any law related to the Armed Forces. 

In the present case, however, the right to seek leave under this Article could not be granted to the petitioners as the period of limitation had expired.

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, 1950

Article 226 of the Constitution of India gives a citizen of India the right to move the High Court by proceedings that are appropriate for the enforcement of their legal and fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution. Article 226 expressly grants powers to the High Court to issue various orders, decisions and writs. The High Court can also issue writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari.

The writ that was filed by the petitioners in the case was the ‘writ of certiorari’ wherein the High Court reviews the decision of the lower court. Further, the power that is conferred upon the High Court by this Article is not in derogation to the power granted to the Supreme Court by Article 32(2) of the Indian Constitution.

Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908

This Section speaks about the rule of Res Judicata, which is the highlight of this case law. It is stated in this section that no court shall initiate or proceed with a lawsuit if the subject matter has already been raised, heard, and decided in a previous case or is currently under consideration in another competent court. Here, the subject matter means the matter referred to in a formal suit alleged by either one of the parties and denied by the other, both impliedly or expressly. The subject matter should have been directly and substantially in issue in the former suit.

It is stated in the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, that a former suit means a suit that has been decided prior to the suit in question, whether or not it was instituted before.

In cases where a court doesn’t specifically grant a relief asked for in a lawsuit, it’s considered as if the court rejected that relief. 

If people genuinely argue in court about a public or shared private right, everyone interested in that right is considered to be part of that argument for this section.

Anyone genuinely claiming a right or relief before the Court, any person that has a direct or indirect interest in such a right, shall be considered as a party to the case claiming the right. Only the decisions made by competent courts are considered when deciding and applying the rule of Res Judicata. If a Court does not have the jurisdiction to decide the matter, the rule Res Judicata cannot be applied.

Relevancy of Res Judicata in Daryao vs. State of U.P. (1961)

Res Judicata is a Latin term that translates to “a thing decided”. It is a part of the common law doctrine that bars the re-litigation of cases between the same parties in the courts. It states that once a case has been decided and final judgement has been given by appropriate proceedings and a competent court, a new case with the same issues or substantial matters cannot be filed in a different court. This rule was brought up to eliminate injustice caused to the parties of a case that had already been decided, and the parties that were not favoured by the decision attempted to bring it up again in order to create unnecessary chaos in the judicial system.

However, Res Judicata does not restrict the process whereby parties appeal to the courts of a higher authority to obtain justice. An appeal is the continuing process of a case, whereas Res Judicata bars the fresh trial of a suit that had already been decided upon. 

When a court pronounced a decision without having the authority and jurisdiction to do so, the decision can be taken up again by a competent court, and Res Judicata cannot be applied here as the court did not have the competence to decide a case yet gave a final decision.

The doctrine of Res Judicata is formed on the basis of three Latin maxims, which are as follows:

  1. Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem: This maxim states that no one should be tried twice for the same cause. This maxim helps administer justice and is contained within the principle of double jeopardy to prevent the prolongment of a case. 
  2. Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium: This maxim talks about upholding the interest of the state. This means that the state’s interest shall be the reason for ending the litigation.
  3. Res Judicata pro verita occipitur: This maxim means that a judicial decision granted by a court must be accepted to be right. A point that is judicially decided is deemed to be correct in nature.

Precedents and principles involved in Daryao vs. State of U.P. (1961)

This bench relied on multiple precedents to pronounce judgement in this case. The Supreme Court relied on several legal principles and precedents to establish that once a matter has been decided by a competent court, it cannot be re-litigated for substantially the same issue in a court again.

The Supreme Court also considered the principles derived from the English common law, which barred the re-litigation of the issues that had already been decided in a suit by the competent court.

In the Laxmanappa Hanumantappa Jamkhandi vs. The Union of India & Another (1954), the court held that due to the provision given in Article 265 of the Constitution of India, tax cannot be collected or levied by anyone other than an authority of law. It was stated by the Supreme Court that Article 265 is not a fundamental right and thus cannot be enforced under Article 32. Chief Justice Mahajan also observed that, despite peculiar circumstances, it would not be just and proper to issue any writ wherein the issue is discretionary with the Court. 

The same has been given effect to and observed by Chief Justice Mahajan in the Dewan Bahadur Seth Gopal Das Mohta vs. The Union of India & ors (1954). It is, however, to be noted that the observations stated above are obiter and thus cannot be considered a decision of the Supreme Court. 

The Court further considered the application of the Res Judicata rule in a petition that was filed under Article 32 in the Raj Lakshmi Dasi vs. Banamali Sen (1952) that the rule of Res Judicata can be invoked even against a petition that was filed under Article 226.

It was observed by the court that in the case of Bhagubhai Dullabhai Bhandari vs. The District Magistrate, Thana (1956), the decision of the High Court was binding between parties and the Supreme Court refused to grant special leave to the petitioner. In simple words, it was decided that if a conviction order is passed by a High Court, it shll be binding on the person convicted and shall have no right to file a writ petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32.

In Janardhan Reddy vs. The State of Hyderabad (1951), the bench observed that a petition for special leave had been filed against the decision of the High Court. The Supreme Court bench accepted the petitions but later dismissed them on merit, and the judgement was delivered by Chief Justice Fazl Ali. He stated that “in this case, we have not considered it necessary to decide whether an application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is maintainable after a similar application under Article 226 is dismissed by the High Court and reserves our opinion on the same”.

The court also relied on the decision of the High Court of Calcutta in the Gulab Koer vs. Badshah Bahadur (1909), wherein a party had unsuccessfully sought a review of their consent order on the ground of fraud, but a plea of Res Judicata was brought against it.

In this case, the court took the view that the application for review was for an inappropriate remedy, and filing a suit was the only remedy available to the party of that suit. Further, the court stated that it was not satisfied with the alternate remedies available to the parties and held that the judgement pronounced by the High Court was binding on both parties. 

Judgement of the case

The Supreme Court stated that the bench, in deciding the case, is satisfied that the change in the form of the attack by the petitioners against the impugned statute would not have an effect on the true legal position that was determined and decided by the High Court of Allahabad.

It was stated that the writ petition was directed against the same statute and same grounds that were previously raised in the writ petition brought upon at the High Court. Therefore, the decision made by the High Court on the merits of the petitioner’s writ petition under Article 226 is a bar to bring upon a petition under Article 32.

Thus, it was decided that the petition failed and was dismissed, and there was no order regarding costs.

Rationale behind this judgement

The Supreme Court, while relying on the precedents mentioned above, concluded that if a writ petition is filed by a party before the High Court under Article 226 and it stands dismissed on merit, it is binding on both parties.

The bench stated that unless the decision is reversed or modified by appeal or any other proceedings that are appropriate and permissible under the Constitution of India, it cannot be ignored by any of the parties.

The Supreme Court stated that citizens are ordinarily entitled to get relief at the hands of the Supreme Court under Article 32, when their fundamental rights are violated. Hence, the bench does not endorse the petitioner’s argument that the application of Res Judicata should be decided for the Article 32 petition under the Indian Constitution merely because it resembles the discretionary power granted to the Court by Article 226 to provide suitable relief.

The court relied on the maxim interest republicae ut sit finis litium that it is in the interest of the State and for public policy and necessity that there should be an end to the litigation process. Further, the bench relied on the maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem cause, which says that an individual cannot be vexed twice for the same cause. 

The Supreme Court further added that it can cause hardships for the individual to go through the rigorous process multiple times. The bench stated that the rule of technical estoppel was different from the rule of Res Judicata as it is based on equitable principles. 

The rule of Res Judicata rests on maxims and is not a technical rule; thus, the Supreme Court cannot accept the argument that it applies to Article 32. The binding character of judgements is an essential part of law wherein judgements that are pronounced by the courts after appropriate proceedings that have competent jurisdiction are binding on both parties.

The Supreme Court further assumed that the competence of the first Court to try the subsequent suit is essential under the rule of Res Judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This is because the jurisdiction of a High Court to deal with a petition under Article 226 is substantially the same as that of the Supreme Court to deal with a petition under Article 32. The cause of action for both these applications under Article 32 and Article 226 would essentially be the same. 

According to the Constitution, Article 226 gives the jurisdiction to the High Court to entertain a writ petition, and Article 32 gives authority to the Supreme Court to entertain a similar writ petition for the same purpose.

The scope of the orders, directions, or writ petitions that the Supreme Court can issue is concurrent with the scope of the orders, directions, or writ petitions that the High Court can entertain.

The Supreme Court observed that the relief claimed in both petitions bears a similar character. The only apparent difference lies in the assertion of the existence of a fundamental right and the unlawful violation, which was used to distinguish between the two petitions.

The Supreme Court noted that the argument presented in a petition filed under Article 32 before the Supreme Court cannot be entertained by the High Court under Article 226. It was then decided by the Supreme Court that the argument that the judgement of the High Court cannot come under the purview of the rule of Res Judicata as it cannot entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India stands rejected. 

Principles laid down by the Court

The principles relating to the application of the rule of Res judicata, discretionary power of the High Court and Supreme Court and judicial review were laid down by the Supreme Court in this case. It set a benchmark for deciding subsequent cases and was termed as a landmark judgement for cases falling in the ambit of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in regard to petitions under Article 32 and Article 226.

Throughout the judgement, the principles laid down by the court are listed as follows:

  • The Supreme Court laid emphasis on the discretionary powers granted to the Courts under Articles 32 and 226, respectively. The Supreme Court stated that these powers shall be exercised within the boundaries of law and in accordance with the rules laid down by the Constitution.
  • The Supreme Court stated that unless the decision of the Court is reversed or modified by appeal or any other proceedings that are appropriate and permissible under the Constitution of India, it cannot be ignored by any of the parties.
  • The bench also stated that the discretionary powers granted to the High Court and Supreme Court should be exercised for public interest and welfare, ensuring fairness rather than the private or individual interests of the parties.
  • The Supreme Court also stated that for the application of Res Judicata, the decision granted by a Court has to be made through appropriate proceedings and that the Court is judicially competent to conduct the trial of the case.
  • The Supreme Court also laid down that when a court issues a decision without proper authority and jurisdiction, that decision can be reviewed by a competent court. In such cases, the principle of Res Judicata does not apply because the initial court lacked the competence to render a final decision on the matter.
  • The bench also stated that the doctrine of Res Judicata will not automatically apply to a petition under Article 32 solely because it resembles the discretionary powers granted to the Court under Article 226 to grant appropriate remedies. The citizens have the right to seek relief from the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution when their fundamental rights are violated and not on the basis of similarity in the discretionary powers.

Analysis of Daryao vs. State of U.P. (1961)

The case put the doctrine of Res Judicata in a higher position and held the binding character of the judgement pronounced by appropriate proceedings by competent courts as essentials of law.

Chief Justice Gajendragadkar stated that the finality of binding judgements pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction lies in the interest of the public at large. He also observed that an individual should not be tried twice for the same offence, which is also in the interest of the public. If these two principles form the foundation of the rule of Res Judicata, they cannot be treated as irrelevant and shall be applied in dealing with cases and petitions concerning fundamental rights filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court laid down some necessary guidelines throughout the judgement that are significant in determining cases that are similar to the subject matter as this case. It was stated that unless modified or reversed in appeal or in any other Court proceedings, a decision given by the High Court under Article 226 will continue to be binding on parties.

The judgement given in this case clarified the scope of judicial review over administrative decisions, asserting that Courts have the authority to review the exercise of discretionary powers to ensure legality, rationality, and fairness. However, it was observed by the bench that Courts should refrain from substituting their discretion for that of the administrative authority unless the decision is shown to be illegal or irrational.

The Supreme Court additionally mentioned that once a case has been decided, the aggrieved party should not be allowed to disregard it and submit a new petition to the Supreme Court under Article 32, relying on the same facts and claims.

Conclusion 

This case law truly laid down principles with regard to the applicability of the rule of Res Judicata in writ petitions and answered the question of the implementation of the rule of Res Judicata in proceedings of writ petitions.

It was stated in this case that a decision granted on merit under Article 226 would be held as res judicata if raised in a writ petition subsequently under Article 32 between the same parties. The essentials are that it should be granted by a competent Court through appropriate legal proceedings.

It is indeed essential to acknowledge that for a decision to serve as a barrier to any future filing, it must be made by a competent court through proper procedures, and the decision must be based on merits.

Therefore, this decision puts the interests of the public and the state on a higher pedestal, similar to the principle of double jeopardy under the principles of natural justice. This case truly served as a landmark case to protect an individual from physical and mental stress caused by the repetitive filing of cases, thereby leading to injustice. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is essential for a decision granted by a High Court under Article 226 to constitute a bar to subsequent pleadings?

The Supreme Court laid down in the Daryao vs. State of U.P. and ors. (1961) that the decision pronounced under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution should be granted by a competent court and through appropriate proceedings. The petition shall be decided or dismissed on the merits of the petition. If dismissed in limine, the petition should be granted through a speaking order. These are the essentials that can constitute a bar to the filing of a subsequent petition.

The Rule of Res Judicata applies to which types of cases in India?

The rule of Res Judicata can be applied to bar subsequent petitions in civil suits, criminal cases and writ petitions. It ensures that a legal case, once adjudicated, shall not be reopened or filed as an original petition on the same claims and issues to prolong the process of law.

What are the exceptions to the doctrine of Res Judicata?

The exceptions to the doctrine of Res Judicata are when the decision earlier was granted by a court beyond its jurisdiction, the decision was obtained by fraud or illegal means, and the judgement was not decided on merits. The decision made by competent courts is considered while deciding and applying the rule of Res Judicata. Another exception is the decree, sentence, judgement, order, or determination in any matter or any cause that was passed or made by any tribunal or court in India under any law related to the Armed Forces. 

References

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here