'Ambush PILs' Filed To Preclude Genuine Litigants; Summary Dismissal Of Earlier Article 32 Petition Won't Operate As Res Judicata : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the summary dismissal of an earlier writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution does not operate as res judicata.

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, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna observed.

The court said that it must be alive to the contemporary reality of "ambush Public Interest Litigations".

The court was considering the PIL filed by National Confederation of Officers Association of Central Public Sector Enterprises challenging the disinvestment of the residual shareholding of the Union Government in Hindustan Zinc Limited, representing 29.54 per cent (approx.) of the equity capital.

The Union Government and SOVL(Sterlite Opportunities and Ventures Limited) objected to the maintainability of the writ petition, and sought its dismissal at the threshold on the ground of res judicata. It was contended that the reliefs sought in the petition overlap with the reliefs sought by the petitioners in the earlier petition instituted by Maton Mines Mazdoor Sangh, which was dismissed by a three-judge Bench of this Court on 10 December 2012.

The court observed that the earlier petition filed by Maton Mines Mazdoor Singh was dismissed in limine, without a substantive adjudication on the merits of their claim, and therefore the present writ petition is not barred by res judicata. It noted that the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata have been applied to the exercise of the writ jurisdiction, including public interest litigation. . Yet courts have been circumspect in denying relief in matters of grave public importance, on a strict application of procedural rules, the court said.

The bench, referring to earlier judgments on this issue, observed thus:

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. 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. The jurisdiction under Article 32 is a fundamental right in and of itself.

Therefore, the court held that summary dismissal of an earlier petition under Article 32 of the Constitution does not bar the present writ petition on grounds of res judicata as there has been no substantive decision on the merits of the issues. Therefore, it partly allowed the writ petition, while considering other aspects of the case. (The factual aspects of this case can be read here)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment