Should the dismissal of an appeal by the Supreme Court against a judgement of the high court in “limine” be construed as confirmation or approval of the verdict, is an important question of law answered by the apex court in “negative”.
“The dismissal of the special leave petition (SLP appeal) in limine (in snap hearing) by the Supreme Court does not mean that the reasoning of the judgement of the high court stands affirmed,” a bench of Justices B.S. Chauthan and Swatanter Kumar said, allaying the common misconception on this aspect.
Making the position of the law rather clear on this important question for the benefit of the common man, the bench said the order of the apex court dismissing the SLP would neither “merge” with the judgement passed by the high court to give it the finality.
The ruling lifts the veil on a popular notion that once the Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal against the high court’s judgement even at the threshold of the hearing, would make the HC verdict final and there would be no further scope to challenge it. The dismissal of the SLP in limine “simply means that the Supreme Court did not consider the case worth examining for the reasons, which may be other than the merits of the case, nor such an order of apex court operates as res- judicata (a final verdict),” the bench held.
“An order rejecting the SLP at threshold without detailed reasons (by apex court therefore, does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent,” the bench held.
Many times, the petitioner withdraws the SLP after the apex court explains the reasons for not entertaining it and such petitions are declared “dismissed as withdrawn” — on this question, the bench clarified that such orders would also not amount to “confirmation” of the HC judgement.
Explaining another aspect related to the SLPs, the bench said if one of the similarly placed persons was given relief by the high court “inadvertently or by mistake”, it would not make the others entitled to the same relief.
The ruling came on the SLP of Fuljit Kaur from Punjab, who had sought the same relief in allotment of a plot given “inadvertently” to another allottee by the HC against which the state initially filed an appeal but preferred to withdraw it.