Under Article 32 Of The Constitution, The Judgment Of High Court Cannot Be Declared As Illegal

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India clarified that it cannot declare a High Court ruling illegal under Article 32 of the Constitution. The decision came in response to a writ petition filed by Vimal Babu Dhumadiya and others against the State of Maharashtra concerning a property dispute.

 

Case Background

 

The petitioners alleged that their apartments were built on government land and claimed they were not given a fair hearing in the Bombay High Court, which ruled against them in July 2024. They sought the Supreme Court’s intervention to declare the High Court's judgment illegal, order a survey of the disputed land, regularize their apartments, and protect them from eviction.

 

Key Legal Issues

 

1. Scope of Article 32: The Supreme Court examined whether Article 32 could be used to challenge a High Court judgment.

 

 

2. Alternative Remedies: The Court emphasized that the proper recourse for the petitioners was to either file a recall application in the High Court or a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136.

 

 

3. Property Dispute: The Court noted that issues like land encroachment and regularization should be addressed through proper legal channels, not via Article 32.

 

 

 

Supreme Court's Observations

 

Article 32 is meant for enforcing fundamental rights, not invalidating High Court judgments.

 

Aggrieved parties have established remedies like filing a recall petition or an SLP.

 

 

Decision

 

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, reiterating that Article 32 is not the correct remedy in such cases. The petitioners were advised to pursue alternative legal options. All pending applications related to the case were also disposed of.

 

This decision reaffirms the constitutional boundaries of Article 32 and underscores the importance of following procedural remedies for legal grievances.