logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 SC 230 print Preview print Next print
Court : Supreme Court of India
Case No : Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 113 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Parties : Maryamaa Josh & Others Versus Union of India & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: ------ For the Respondents: -----
Date of Judgment : 13-02-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Article 32 of the Constitution of India

2. Catch Words:
- frivolous
- vexatious
- writ petition
- per incuriam
- sub silentio
- fundamental right

3. Summary:
The Court characterizes the writ petition under Article 32 as frivolous and vexatious. The petitioners seek to declare two earlier Supreme Court decisions as passed per incuriam or sub silentio. The Court relies on *Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra* to emphasize that judicial orders must be challenged through the prescribed legal procedure and do not directly affect fundamental rights. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Any pending applications are also disposed of. The Registry is directed not to register similar petitions without the Chief Justice’s orders.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. This is an absolutely frivolous and thoroughly vexatious writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

2. Petitioners primarily seek orders to declare the decisions of coordinate benches of this Court in Pro Knits v. Board of Directors of Canara Bank[(2024) 10 SCC 292] and Shri Shri Swami Samarth Construction & Finance Solution v. NKGSB Coop. Bank Ltd.[ (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1566] to have been passed per incuriam / sub silentio.

3. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra[AIR 1967 SC 1] is an authority for the proposition that judicial orders passed by the competent Courts / Tribunals do not affect fundamental right of any citizen; if a party is aggrieved by a judicial order, such order has to be challenged according to the procedure prescribed by law.

4. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed.

5. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

6. We make it clear that the Registry shall not register any further writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking similar relief of declaring Pro Knits (supra) and Shri Shri Swami Samarth (supra) to have been passed per incuriam / sub silentio, without obtaining orders from the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.
 
  CDJLawJournal