INTRODUCTION
Today, I will talk about the case of National
Confederation of Officers Association of Central Public Sector Enterprises and
Others v. Union of India and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1086, wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the applicability of the Principle of Res
Judicata to Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in India.
SECTION 11 OF CPC
Basically, Section 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure embodies the principle of res judicata and bars the court from
deciding issues which have been directly or substantially in issue in an
earlier proceeding between the same parties and have been finally decided. It
is also pertinent to note that “before a plea of res judicata can be
given effect, the following conditions must be proved: -
a. The litigating parties must be the same;
b. The subject-matter of the suit also must
be identical;
c. The matter must be finally decided
between the parties; and
d. The suit must be decided by a court of
competent jurisdiction.”
Thus, aforesaid are the basic conditions in
relation to the Principle of Res Judicata. Now, in order to understand whether
the principle of Res Judicata is applicable to Public Interest Litigations or
not, let us go through the pertinent observations by the Court.
OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT
Firstly, the Court noted that though the principle
of res judicata has been applied to public interest litigations, “yet
courts have been circumspect in denying relief in matters of grave public
importance, on a strict application of procedural rules.”
Secondly, the Court cited the celebrated case of Daryao
v. State of U.P., (1962) 1 SCR 574, wherein it was held that if a Petition
“is dismissed in limine without passing a speaking order then such
dismissal cannot be treated as creating a bar of res judicata.” According
to the Court, if a Petition is dismissed in limine without a speaking
order, then it would be open to argue that there was no substance in such a
petition; however, without a speaking order, it would be not be proper for the
court to hold that “such a summary dismissal is a dismissal on merits and
as such constitutes a bar of res judicata against a similar petition.”
Thirdly, the Court observed that “while determining
the applicability of the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code
of Civil Procedure 1908, the Court must be conscious that grave issues of
public interest are not lost in the woods merely because a petition was
initially filed and dismissed, without a substantial adjudication on merits.”
And lastly, the Court also cautioned that “there
is a trend of poorly pleaded public interest litigations being filed instantly
following a disclosure in the media, with a conscious intention to obtain a
dismissal from the Court and preclude genuine litigants from approaching the
Court in public interest. This Court must be alive to the contemporary reality
of “ambush Public Interest Litigations” and interpret the principles of res
judicata or constructive res judicata in a manner which does not debar access
to justice.”
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Those were the observations of the Court. In
conclusion, following important points emerge: -
a. The Principle of Res Judicata under S. 11 of
CPC does apply on Public Interest Litigations.
b. While attracting the bar of Res Judicata on a
Public Interest Litigation, the Court must take into consideration the grave
issues of public interest or importance involved in the case.
c. If a Public Interest Litigation “is
dismissed in limine without passing a speaking order then such dismissal cannot
be treated as creating a bar of res judicata.”
d. The Courts must be cautious of poorly pleaded
Public Interest Litigations that are filed with an intent to obtain a dismissal
from the Court and preclude genuine litigations.
e. The Principle of Res Judicata must be interpreted
in a manner that does not debar access to justice.
Therefore, I hope that the applicability of the Principle
of Res Judicata on Public Interest Litigations is clear by now.
A short and nice approach to the topic
ReplyDelete