Our judgments cannot be reopened on flimsy grounds: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has said its judgments after they attain finality should not be disturbed or re-opened on flimsy grounds, especially in a case in which review and curative petitions have been dismissed.

A Bench of Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma said: “This court has consistently taken the view that the judgments delivered by this court cannot be re-opened in a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.”

Justice Bhandari said: “The judgment of the Supreme Court has great sanctity, and unless there are extremely compelling, overriding and exceptional circumstances, it should not be disturbed.”

The Bench said: “It is the bounden duty and obligation of the court to neutralise any unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by any party by invoking the jurisdiction of the court; when a party applies and gets a stay or injunction from the court, it is always at the risk and responsibility of the party applying. An order of stay cannot be presumed to be conferment of additional right upon the litigating party.”

It said: “Unscrupulous litigants must be prevented from taking undue advantage by invoking jurisdiction of the court; a person in wrongful possession should not only be removed from that place as early as possible but be compelled to pay fine, penalty and costs for wrongful use of that premises. Any leniency would seriously affect the credibility of the judicial system; no litigant can derive benefit from the mere pendency of a case in a court of law; a party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of his own wrongs; litigation should not be permitted to turn into a fruitful industry so that the unscrupulous litigants are encouraged to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.

“This is a very unusual and extraordinary litigation where even after 15 years of the final judgment of this court on February 13, 1996, the litigation has been deliberately kept alive by filing one interlocutory application or the other in order to avoid compliance with the judgment, which has not been permitted to acquire finality till date.

In this case, acting on a report from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the Supreme Court on November 4, 1997 directed Hindustan Agro Chemical Ltd. to pay Rs. 37.385 crore towards the costs of remedy for causing pollution in certain villages in Rajasthan.

The Bench said: “The applicant industry has deliberately not complied with the orders, and thousands of villagers have been adversely affected.” It directed that this amount be paid with a 12 per cent compound interest from November 4, 1997 till it is paid. It also imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 10 lakh on the unit.