Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

In which decision rendered by the Apex Court has it been held that an order under Article 226 passed in a habeas corpus matter will not constitute res judicata to bar a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India?

In which decision rendered by the Apex Court has it been held that an order under Article 226 passed in a habeas corpus matter will not constitute res judicata to bar a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India? Correct Answer Ghulam Sarwar v. Union of India

Related Questions

Assertion (A): Refusal to issue a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 does not bar the remedy for a similar writ under Article 32.
Reason (R): The rule of res judicata is not applicable to the writ of habeas corpus.
"If the writ petition under Article 226 in a High Court is dismissed on the merits (i.e. dismissed in limine); but because of laches of the party applying for the writ or because it is held that the party had an alternative remedy available to it, then dismissal of writ petition (under Article 226) would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32." This principle was laid down by Supreme Court in:
That a petition dismissed under Article 226 would operate as res judicata so as to bar a similar petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution was held in the case of;
To constitute a matter of res judicata which of the following conditions must concur?
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (section 11, explanation III) or constructively (section 11, explanation IV) in the former suit
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim. Explanation VI of Section 11 must be read with this condition
3. The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit
4. The court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit of the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. Explanation II of section 11 is to be read with condition
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit. Explanation V of section 11 is to be read with this condition
Assertion (A): The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to writs.
Reason (R): If a writ of habeas corpus is rejected by the Supreme Court, the same writ can be file a fresh before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Assertion (A): A Habeas Corpus writ petition dismissed by the Supreme Court can be admitted by High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
Reasons (R): In exercising writ jurisdiction the powers of the Supreme Court and High Court are concurrent
A seven member bench of the Supreme Court unanimously struck down clauses 2(d) of Article 323A and clause 3(d) of Article 323B of the Constitution relating to tribunals which excluded the jurisdiction of High Court and Supreme Court. The court held that power of judicial review over legislative action is vested in the High Court under Article 226 and in the Supreme Court under Article 32. This is an integral part of the basic structure of the constitution. Name the case:
A person whose petition for Habeas Corpus has been refused by the High Court on merits, seeks to move the Supreme Court by an original petition. According to the Constitutional Law of India.
A, a bank officer, got compulsorily retired in 2014. Since the bank authorities did not release the leave encashment in his favour, he filed writ petition WP 2001 (W) of 2017 in Ranchi High Court for the same and also for the interest on the unpaid amount. The writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge in December 2018 directing the bank to release the privileged leave encashment benefits to the petitioner to the extent he was entitled to in accordance with law within a certain period. The prayer for interest was not specifically denied by the court. The bank filed an appeal against the order. The Division Bench of Ranchi High Court in February, 2019 declined to admit the appeal. The bank authorities released the leave encashment in favour of the petitioner. However, A files a writ petition again for a direction to the bank to disburse interest to A at the rate of 18% per annum on leave encashment released by the bank. This petition is covered under which of the following?
Study the following statements and pick up the correct code:
Statement I: The power of High Court to issue writs under Article 226 is wider than the power of Supreme Court under Article 32.
Statement II: The Supreme Court has the power to issue writs only for violation of fundamental rights whereas the power of High Court under Article 226 can be invoked for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as legal rights.