Latest JudgementConstitution of India

SATISH CHANDER SHARMA & ORS. v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS., 2025

The Court emphasized that the review jurisdiction and curative jurisdiction were designed to address any errors in judicial decisions

Supreme Court of India·17 April 2025

Constitution of India

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

17 April 2025

Judges

Justice Surya Kant ⦁ Justice Dipankar Datta ⦁ Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

The petitioners, who are retired employees, were denied pensionary benefits following the repeal of a pension scheme that introduced cut-off dates for receiving additional benefits.
They sought to challenge the final judgment in State of H.P. v. Rajesh Chander Sood (2016), which upheld the repeal of the pension scheme and the curtailment of additional benefits for pensioners.
The petitioners argued that Rajesh Chander Sood (2016) was per incuriam since it ignored the D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) case, which prohibits the arbitrary creation of cut-off dates for pension benefits.

Whether a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in a special leave petition or civil appeal can be directly challenged under Article 32 of the Constitution?
Whether the Rajesh Chander Sood judgment was per incuriam due to ignoring binding precedents such as D.S. Nakara v. Union of India?
Whether the petitioners are bound by the earlier judgment in Rajesh Chander Sood?

The Supreme Court held that the petitioners’ attempt to challenge the Rajesh Chander Sood judgment under Article 32 was misconceived.
The judgment in Rajesh Chander Sood (2016) remains binding and cannot be challenged through a writ petition under Article 32.
The Court emphasized the finality of judicial decisions and stated that the review and curative petition were the appropriate remedies if the petitioners were aggrieved by the decision.

This judgment underscores the finality of Supreme Court decisions, reinforcing that once a decision has been made in a special leave petition or civil appeal, it cannot be directly challenged under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The Court emphasized that the review jurisdiction and curative jurisdiction were designed to address any errors in judicial decisions.
The Court’s ruling helps maintain the hierarchical structure of the judiciary and ensures that judicial decisions are not continuously reopened, fostering legal certainty and stability.
By distinguishing Rajesh Chander Sood from the D.S. Nakara case, the Court clarified that differentiation of precedents does not make a judgment per incuriam, even if it diverges from earlier rulings. This approach contributes to the evolution of legal principles while ensuring legal consistency.