The Apex Court in a recent judgement- “Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs Manmohan Attavar (D) Thr LRs” reinstated a crucial point of law.
It held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution is not maintainable to challenge a judicial order or any order which has been passed by the High Court in exercise of its judicial powers.
The decision was laid by a two judge bench consisting Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice KM Joseph in exercise of power of the Supreme Court to transfer cases under Article 139A.
The petitioner in the present case filed a writ petition under Article 226 in order to challenge a judgment dated 31 July 2018 delivered by a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court under its criminal revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner prayed through the petition that the said judgement may be declared void/disabled/recalled and a fresh hearing be instituted before a higher/full bench.
The petitioner based her submissions on the grounds that the order had not been written by the Judge of the HC and that while disposing the criminal revision the court had exercised its jurisdiction in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Further, she challenged the findings of the court; deeming them to be erroneous.
The respondent claimed that the litigant is not without any remedies since she can approach the court through Letters Patent Appeal or by way of a review or through article 136.
The court ruled in favour of the Respondent and disallowed the Writ Petition on grounds of maintainability.
But SC left open the rights and remedies available to the petitioner by way of a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution to assail the judgment of the Single Judge bench.
Jurisdictio Omnis 