'If Relief Deserved, Grant It Then & There' : Supreme Court Deprecates 'Consider Jurisprudence' Of Remanding Matters To Authorities

The Supreme Court has deprecated the growing tendency of courts to repeatedly remand matters to authorities for reconsideration without finally adjudicating rights, leading to endless cycles of litigation.

A Bench comprising Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe underscored that where a case merits relief, it must be granted immediately, rather than being left to languish amid procedural formalities. Moreover, when the Courts wish to remand the matter to the authorities to consider the litigant's case, there should be “a clear and categorical direction about existence of a right, its violation and what exactly the government authority is to comply.”

“When a claim of a right is legal and justified, relief must follow.”, the Court observed, while deprecating the tendency of the Courts adopting a 'consider jurisprudence', while failing to act on the relief sought by a litigant when a right claimed is legal and justified.

"There is no doubt about the fact that the “consider jurisprudence”, so routinely adopted these days and if we may use the expression - to throw the ball out of the Court, is counterproductive and harms the system."

The case concerned lecturers appointed in 1993 in Ranveer Rananjay Postgraduate College, Amethi, who sought payment of salaries from the State exchequer after government financial assistance to non-aided colleges was withdrawn in 2000. Over the years, the dispute travelled through four rounds of writ petitions before the High Court, each time resulting in directions to the State authorities to “consider” the matter afresh.

Each reconsideration ended in rejection by the government, followed by another writ petition, creating what the Supreme Court described as an endless cycle of remands without final adjudication. Matters eventually spilled into contempt proceedings, where repeated affidavits of compliance were filed and rejected, culminating in the High Court initiating steps to frame contempt charges against the Principal Secretary, Higher Education, prompting the Appellant to move to the Supreme Court.

The bench criticized the Allahabad High Court for failing to act on the Appellants repetitive pleas and denigrating him to the authorities to seek relief.

“If a case deserves relief, it must be granted then and there, unflinchingly if need be. Balancing of equities is not to be confused with avoiding or postponing the relief.”, the Court remarked.

Further, the court found that the High Court erred in not making a categorical direction while remanding the matter to the authorities about the existence of a right, its violation, and what exactly the government is to comply.

“Had there been such clarity, the government would not have choice. In fact, it should have no choice. It should either comply, appeal or face contempt. It is necessary for the courts to articulate its direction in clear terms and also specify the method and manner of compliance if necessary.”, the court observed.

Since the present litigation has spanned for over 16 years, the Court deemed it necessary to pass the following order;

“a) We permit the respondents to file a writ petition against the order dated 09.05.2025. The said writ petition will be taken up along with the contempt proceedings pending before the High Court.

b) The High Court will first take up the writ petition and pass final orders taking into account its earlier orders passed on 7.10.2010, 06.03.2013 and 14.07.2013.

c) The High Court shall not remand the matter back to the authorities for reconsideration as the perspective of the government is clearly evident.

d) If it is satisfied with the merits of the matter, it shall issue clear and categorical directions for compliance. If not, it may dismiss the Writ Petition with clear and simple reasons.

e) High Court will hear the learned counsels for the State as well as the writ petitioners before passing reasoned order.”

The Chief Justice of the High Court was requested to assign these matters to the appropriate bench for final order by 30th April, 2026.

Cause Title: MAHENDRA PRASAD AGARWAL VERSUS ARVIND KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pushkar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vikramaditya Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Aditya Singh, AOR Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kishor, Adv. Mr. Vaseem, Adv. Mr. Anand Ranjan, AOR