Back
1980 Supreme(Del) 21
High Court Of Delhi
JYOTI PRAKASH MITTER - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Suit 151 of 1974
Decided On : 01/28/1980
B.AGRAWAL, K.N.Kataria
A suit challenging the validity of a Supreme Court judgment is barred under Article 141 of the Constitution, which makes the law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all courts in India.
Headnote:
JURISDICTION - SUIT CHALLENGING SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT - MAINTAINABILITY - ARTICLE 141 OF THE CONSTITUTION - SECTION 9 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - LIMITATION - SECTION 80 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - SECTION 15 (2) OF THE LIMITATION ACT - SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT - INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 217 (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION - CERTIFICATE UNDER ARTICLE 132 (1) OF THE CONSTITUTION - LEAVE UNDER ARTICLE 132 (3) OR SPECIAL LEAVE UNDER ARTICLE 136 - JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT - INHERENT POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT - ORDER 47, RULE 6 OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 1966 - REVIEW PETITION - ARTICLE 141 OF THE CONSTITUTION - PRESIDENT OF INDIA'S DECISION UNDER ARTICLE 217 (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION - CHALLENGE TO - CONSTITUTION (FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1963 - RETIREMENT AGE OF HIGH COURT JUDGES.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a former High Court Judge, filed a suit challenging the validity of a Supreme Court judgment that had upheld the President of India's decision regarding his age and retirement. The plaintiff argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and that the judgment was without jurisdiction and a nullity.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was not maintainable as it challenged the validity of a Supreme Court judgment, which is binding on all courts in India under Article 141 of the Constitution. The court also held that the suit was within limitation as the period of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was excluded for computing the period of limitation. The court further held that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as the certificate under Article 132 (1) of the Constitution was valid and the Supreme Court had inherent powers to dispense with its own rules. The court also held that the President of India's decision under Article 217 (3) of the Constitution was not open to challenge and that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim the status of a High Court Judge till 27th December, 1966.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit challenging the Supreme Court judgment is maintainable? 2. Whether the suit is within limitation? 3. Whether the Supreme Court judgment is without jurisdiction and a nullity? 4. Whether the notice served by the plaintiff under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was valid? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the status of a High Court Judge till 27th December, 1966?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A suit challenging the validity of a Supreme Court judgment is barred under Article 141 of the Constitution, which makes the law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all courts in India. 2. The period of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is excluded for computing the period of limitation for the institution of a suit under section 15 (2) of the Limitation Act. 3. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal on the basis of a certificate under Article 132 (1) of the Constitution and can dispense with its own rules under Order 47, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. 4. The President of India's decision under Article 217 (3) of the Constitution is not open to challenge. 5. A High Court Judge is entitled to hold office until he attains the age of 62 years under the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963.
Final Decision: The plaintiff's suit was dismissed with no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE plaintiff was appointed an additional Judge of tile High Court at Calcutta on February II, 1949 and a permanent Judge of the said court on 21st January, 1950. He gave his date of birth as 27th December, 1904. After the plaintiff had been in office for about ten years the Home Minister, Government of India purported to reopen the question of his age on the ground of discrepency between the age as stated in his certificate for the Matriculate Examination and the age given by him. The Government of India held the plaintiff s correct date of birth to be 27th December, 1901. This determination opened the gates of the litigation between the plaintiff and the Government. The plaintiff filed petition in the circuit bench of the Punjab High Court but it was dismissed as not maintainable. The plaintiff then filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court at Calcutta. It was heard by a Special Bench of five judges and his petition was dismissed by a majority decision of four judges vide judgment dated 22nd May, 1964. The plaintiff filed an appeal to the Supreme Court by special leave which was allowed on 9th November, 1964 and this judgment is reported in AIR 1965 SC 961. The Supreme Court held that the purported decision of the Government of India determining the plaintiff s date of birth as 27th December, 1901 was no decision of the President within the meaning of article 217 (3) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court while deciding the plaintiff s appeal gave certain directions. Persuant to these directions the Home Ministry on or about 17th November, 1964 made a reference to the President of India inviting him to decide the question of plaintiff s age under Article 217 (3) of the Constitution. The President consulted the Chief Justice of India who on 28th September, 1965 advised him to hold that the plaintiff was born on 27th December, 1901 and not on 27th December, 1904. The President of India on 29th September, 1965 passed the following order :
"i accept the advice tendered by the Chief Justice of India and decide that the age of Sri Jyoti Prakash Mitter should be determined on the basis that he was born on 27th December, 1901. "
( 2 ) THE plaintiff by his letter dated 15th October, 1965 to the President prayed that his decision should be reopened and that he should be granted an audience in the presence of the Chief Justice of India and a representative of the Home Ministry. The plaintiff was told by the Home Ministry that the matter could not be reopened. The plaintiff on 3rd August, 1966 then moved the Calcutta High Court again under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying inter alia that the purported decision of the President of India be set aside or quashed or for other appropriate reliefs. The rule nisi issued on the said writ petition was made absolute by O. D. Basu, J. of the Calcutta High Court vide judgment dated 7th and 8th August, 1967. It was held that the order dated 29th September, 1965 of the President of India was not a decision of the President in terms of article 217 (3) of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, after the delivery of the judgment on a verbal prayer for a Certificate under article 132 (1) of the Constitution on the ground that the case involved a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Article 217 (3) of the Constitution, granted the certificate asked for. The defendant, Union of India filed the petition of appeal in the Supreme Court and reiterated that the appeal involved a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Article 217 (3) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal of the defendant and reversed the judgment of the Calcutta High Court. The Supreme Court Judgment : Union of India vs. Jyoti Prakash Mitter is reported in AIR 1971 SC 1093 (1 ). The plaintiff filed an application before the Supreme Court for review of judgment dated 21st January, 1971 but his
