Article 32 Jurisdiction Not For Those Who Refuse To Avail Remedies Provided By High Court: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Of Odisha Sisters

"If there is no FIR as on date at the behest of the petitioners, there is no question of any police action or investigation. If there is no FIR and investigation, there is no occasion for considering transferring the investigation to the CBI," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that discretionary jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be exercised for petitioners who have consistently failed to avail themselves of the remedies and protections already granted by a High Court.

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti observed that the petitioners, two sisters from Odisha, appeared "not aware as to what they actually want," as they refused state-provided accommodation, medical aid, and legal assistance offered throughout the proceedings.

The petitioners, two sisters whose father was a village policeman and whose grandfather was a freedom fighter, approached the Apex Court seeking the registration of an FIR, police protection, and a CBI investigation into their father's death. They alleged their father was murdered in 2016 and that they were forcibly dispossessed of their family property by an elder sister. The matter had previously seen intervention by the Odisha High Court via a suo moto PIL in 2019, which had directed land restoration and police protection for the duo.

The primary question before the court was whether the petitioners were entitled to relief under Article 32 regarding the transfer of investigation to the CBI when no FIR had been registered at their behest. The court also considered whether a writ petition should be entertained when the petitioners had failed to exercise the liberty granted to them by the High Court to revive previous proceedings or seek discharge in pending cases.

Petitioners Failed To Avail Remedies Granted By High Court

The Court noted that the High Court of Orissa had already taken proactive steps in 2019 to ensure the petitioners' land was restored and they were provided with a "normal life." However, the petitioners never applied for discharge in criminal cases as permitted, nor did they move to revive the PIL within the stipulated time if they faced difficulties. The bench observed that despite counseling by the Amicus Curiae appointed by the Supreme Court, the sisters failed to avail of the legal remedies available at the trial and High Court levels.

State’s Affidavit Highlights Family Dispute And Social Boycott

The State of Odisha filed an affidavit clarifying that the petitioners' father had died a natural death in a hospital due to old-age ailments, contrary to the allegations of murder. The dispute reportedly arose because the elder sister had married outside her caste, leading to a social boycott of the family by the Rana community. The State further submitted that the petitioners had previously filed FIRs that were dropped for want of evidence, while trials were pending in FIRs lodged against the petitioners by their elder sister.

"The petitioners brought the dead body of their father to their house and locked it... to create media sensation; and the petitioners were never assaulted and beaten."

Refusal Of Medical And Psychological Assistance

During the pendency of the writ, the Court had directed the District Magistrate, Central Delhi, to provide the petitioners with accommodation, meals, and medical treatment. However, the District Magistrate’s report indicated that the petitioners refused the arranged stay, insisting on private rooms with attached facilities, and skipped medical appointments. The Court took serious note of the petitioners' refusal to accept facilities extended in their own interest, including psychological treatment.

"The petitioners refuse to appear before the doctors despite District Magistrate arranging several appointments to ensure their medical checkup and further treatment."

No Scope For CBI Probe Without A Registered FIR

On the legal requirement for a CBI probe, the Court clarified that such a transfer of investigation is impossible when no investigation exists in the first place. The bench emphasized that if the petitioners believe their complaint is not being registered, the proper course of action is to approach a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure or the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Remedy Lies Under Section 156(3) CrPC / Section 175(3) BNSS

The Court held that the petitioners are not without a remedy, but they must follow the statutory procedure for the registration of an FIR. The bench noted that if a complaint is not registered, the petitioners have the remedy to approach the concerned Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, 1973, which is equivalent to Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023.

"In the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we do not consider it to be a fit case for exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India."

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds to interfere under Article 32, especially given the petitioners' conduct and the existence of alternative remedies. The Court, however, left it open for the petitioners to pursue other legal avenues, including those previously permitted by the High Court of Orissa.

Date of Decision: 20 May 2026