In a recent ruling dated July 19, the Supreme Court of India reinforced the principle that compliance with an order under threat does not negate the right of a party to challenge that order. The ruling was made in the context of a land dispute case heard by Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra.
The Court cited the precedent set in Subodh Kumar Jaiswal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2008) 11 SCC 139], emphasizing, “Compliance of an order under threat cannot take away the right of a party to challenge the same.”
The case originated from a writ petition filed by the appellants in the High Court, which was dismissed. A subsequent review petition also faced dismissal. The appellants appealed to a division bench of the High Court. Their appeal was rejected as meritless, and a delay of 614 days in filing the appeal was not condoned.
Observations
The High Court criticised the appellants for not providing a plausible explanation for the delay. It was stated, “The applicants appear to have trumped up the allegation of fraud to succeed in getting the delay condoned.”
Upon reaching the Supreme Court, the Bench referred to its earlier decision. Re: Cognisance for Extension of Limitation [Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020]. It excluded the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022. From the limitation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic. An additional 90 days from March 1, 2022, was also provided for challenging relevant judgments or orders.
Senior Advocate R. Basant, represented the appellants. He argued that the writ appeal was filed promptly after obtaining a certified copy of the review order. The Supreme Court accepted this explanation and noted, “The petitioners have satisfactorily explained the delay. If any, in preferring the appeal against the judgment in W.P. No. 16019 of 2020.”
Precedents
The High Court had relied on the case of Postmaster General and Others v. Living Media India Limited (2012) 3 SCC 563, which stressed the importance of adhering to prescribed limitation periods. However, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court did not adequately consider the appellants’ case in light of this precedent and failed to provide reasons for deeming the appeal meritless.
“Paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment would not reveal application of mind in considering the case of the appellant, in the light of the decision referred (supra). To put it simply, though it was held that the appeal is meritless, the impugned judgment would not disclose any reason therefor. There can be no doubt that application of mind can be reflected only through reasons. In fact, it is the cursory consideration that culminated in the impugned judgment,” the Supreme Court stated.
As a result, the Supreme Court condoned the delay, set aside the impugned order. They restored the writ appeal to the High Court for reconsideration. This ruling underscores the importance of the right to challenge judicial orders. Even when compliance is made under threat.
