Binding verdict of Supreme court cannot be challenged under Art 32

Posted on 10 March, 2023 by Administrator

Abstract : Plea seeking a direction to the Centre to reinterpret section 24 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act 2013 before Honb'le bench of Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud 

Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking to overrule a 2020 verdict delivered by a five-judge constitution bench pertaining to the land acquisition Act in A petition under Article 32 of the Constitution stating that same cannot be maintained to challenge a binding judgment of the apex court,.

Article 32 of Constitution of India reads :
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution

“A petition under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be maintained in order to challenge a binding judgment of this court. We, therefore, decline to entertain the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed,” the bench, also comprising Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala, said in its March 3 order.

It had interpreted section 24 of the 2013 Act as there were two conflicting verdicts by different benches of the apex court on the issue.
Section 24 of the Act deals with situations under which land acquisition proceedings shall deemed to have been lapsed. The provision said if no award of compensation has been decided in a land acquisition case by January 1, 2014, then the provisions of 2013 Act will apply in determining the compensation for acquisition of land.

In its 2020 verdict, the constitution bench had held that disputes over land acquisition and payment of fair compensation to owners cannot be re-opened under the ‘Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013’ if the legal processes have been completed before January 1, 2014. Interpreting the provision, the constitution bench had said, “Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e. January 1, 2014.” The provision also says if an award has been announced prior to the cut-off date, then the land acquisition proceedings shall continue under the 1894 Act.