Why in the News? The decision in SC Gupta v. Union of India and Anr. (2025) has garnered attention because it clarifies the applicability of the constructive res judicata doctrine to writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. This ruling, delivered by a division bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, addresses a critical aspect of public policy: preventing the abuse of judicial processes through successive litigations on issues that could have been raised earlier. It reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to finality in litigation, curbing multiplicity of proceedings and ensuring judicial resources are not overburdened. The case also draws on established Supreme Court precedents, making it a notable reference for future writ petitions.

Key Points of the Judgment:

Applicability of Constructive Res Judicata to Writ Proceedings:

1. • The court held that while the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), such as Section 11 (res judicata) and Order II Rule 2, may not strictly apply to writ proceedings, the broader principles, including constructive res judicata, are applicable.
   • Constructive res judicata prevents a litigant from raising a claim in a subsequent proceeding that could and should have been raised in an earlier proceeding between the same parties. This ensures that all relevant issues are addressed in a single litigation to avoid endless disputes.

Case Background:

• The petitioner, SC Gupta, challenged the constitutional validity of Clause 3.3.1 of the Revised Guidelines issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (dated July 31, 2015) regarding rewards for informers and government servants in cases of customs duty seizures.
• The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 14658/2024) challenging a CPGRAMS order, which was dismissed by a Single Judge on October 29, 2024. An intra-court appeal (LPA 1219/2024) was also dismissed on December 17, 2024. In the current petition, the petitioner sought to challenge Clause 3.3.1, which grants discretionary power to authorities in determining rewards.

Court’s Reasoning:

• The court observed that the petitioner failed to challenge Clause 3.3 in the earlier litigation, despite the opportunity to do so. Allowing such a challenge now would violate the principle of constructive res judicata and lead to endless litigation, contrary to public policy.
• The court emphasized that finality of decisions is a crucial aspect of public policy. Permitting successive writ petitions on grounds that could have been raised earlier would overburden the judiciary and harass respondents.
• • The court relied on Supreme Court judgments, such as Devilal Modi v. Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam (1964) and State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain (1977), which affirmed that res judicata principles, including constructive res judicata, apply to writ proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

Public Policy Consideration:

1. • The court highlighted that the doctrine of constructive res judicata is rooted in public policy to prevent multiplicity of litigation. Without its application, litigants could file repeated petitions, raising new grounds each time, undermining judicial efficiency.
   • The court noted that Section 141 of the CPC excludes writ proceedings under Article 226 from certain procedural rules, but public policy considerations override this exclusion when it comes to res judicata.

Outcome:

1. • The court dismissed the writ petition, holding it not maintainable due to the bar of constructive res judicata. The petitioner’s failure to challenge Clause 3.3 in earlier proceedings meant they could not raise it now.
   • The ruling underscores that litigants must exhaust all relevant grounds in their initial petition to avoid being barred by constructive res judicata in subsequent proceedings.

What is Constructive Res Judicata?

• Definition: Constructive res judicata is an extension of the res judicata doctrine, which bars a party from re-litigating a matter that has already been decided by a competent court. Specifically, it prevents a party from raising issues or claims in a subsequent proceeding that could and should have been raised in an earlier proceeding between the same parties but were not.
• Legal Basis: In India, the principle is codified under Section 11, Explanation IV of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which states that any matter that might and ought to have been made a ground of defense or attack in a former suit is deemed to have been decided in that suit, even if it was not raised.
• Objective: The doctrine promotes judicial efficiency, prevents abuse of the legal process, and ensures finality in litigation by discouraging piecemeal or successive lawsuits.