CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 1984 › Abdul Rehman Antulay v. Union of India and Ors. Etc.

Abdul Rehman Antulay v. Union of India and Ors. Etc.

Supreme Court of India · 17 April 1984 · [1984] 3 S.C.R. 482

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
17 April 1984
Reported as
[1984] 3 S.C.R. 482
Result
Dismissed
Bench
Sen, Amarendra Nath (J)
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

PETITIONER:
ABDUL REHMAN ANTULAY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT17/04/1984
BENCH:
SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)
DESAI, D.A.
CITATION:
1984 AIR 1358 1984 SCR (3) 482
1984 SCALE (1)620

ACT

Constitution of India Art. 141-Duty of all courts to follow decision of the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Rules-Whether Supreme Court can entertain writ petition against its own order and judgment.

HEADNOTE

JUDGMENT

ORIGINAL & CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Crl) No. 708 of 1984.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

And

Special Leave Petition (Crl) Nos. 1949-50 of 1984

(From the Judgment and Order dated 13.3.84 and 16.3.84 of the Bombay High Court in Special Case Nos. 24/82 & 3/83)

Murli Bhandare, Govinddas, Ms. Bina Gupta, H.R. Bhardwaj and PP. Singh for the petitioner.

Ram Jethmalani, Ashok Desai and Ms. Rani Jethmalani for the respondents.

The Order of the Court was delivered by

AMARENDRA NATH SEN, J. There is no merit in this Writ Petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

In my view, the writ petition challenging the validity of the order and judgment passed by this Court as nullity or otherwise incorrect cannot be entertained. I wish to make it clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not prejudice the right of the petitioner, to approach the Court with an appropriate review petition or to file any other application which he may be entitled in law to file. 483

DESAI, J. I broadly agree with the conclusion recorded by my brother.

The learned Judge in deciding the S.L.P. (Crl) Nos. 1149-50/1984 has followed the decision of this Court. The learned Judge was perfectly justified and indeed it was the duty of the learned Judge to follow the decision of this Court which is binding on him.

Special leave petitions are dismissed. H.S.K. Petitions dismissed. 484

Ask CaseMinister about Abdul Rehman Antulay v. Union of India and Ors. Etc.

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp