Finality of SLP Dismissal Cannot Be Undermined by Filing a Second Petition — Supreme Court Declares Second SLP as Abuse of Process

“Entertaining a Second SLP Is Nothing but Giving a Second Bite at the Cherry” —  In a strong reaffirmation of the principle of finality in litigation, the Supreme Court of India, on 1st September 2025, in the case of Vasantalata Kom Vimalanand Mirjankar v. Deepa Mavinkurve & Ors. [SLP (C) Diary No. 36933 of 2025], dismissed a second Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner against a High Court judgment that had already been upheld earlier by the Supreme Court in 2014 through a non-speaking dismissal.

A Bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice N.V. Anjaria held that re-litigation by way of a fresh SLP against the same High Court judgment amounts to an abuse of the Court’s jurisdiction and violates judicial discipline, clearly falling foul of the bar under Article 136 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

“Judicial Orders Cannot Be Endlessly Reopened; Litigation Must End Somewhere” — Apex Court Rejects Attempt to Re-agitate Settled Matter

The petitioner’s first SLP challenging the High Court’s decision dated 30th January 2014 (RFA 1549/2003) had been dismissed on 1st July 2014 in limine, without reasons. Thereafter, the High Court dismissed her Review Petition on 18th February 2025, and the petitioner sought to challenge both orders through the present SLP.

However, the Supreme Court held: “Entertaining the present SLP qua the order dated 30th January 2014 would amount to sitting in appeal over the order dated 1st July 2014 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.”

It further held that once an SLP has been dismissed—even non-speaking and without leave—the doctrine of finality attaches to the original order.

“SLP Cannot Be Used to Reopen Matters Already Concluded — Review Route Has Its Limits”

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument based on S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar (2023) 7 SCC 740, where a similar issue had been referred to a larger bench, noting:

“In S. Narahari, the SLP was dismissed as withdrawn, not dismissed outright. The facts are not pari materia and hence, the reference has no bearing on the present case.”

The Court clarified that judgments like Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359 and Khoday Distilleries (2019) 4 SCC 376 merely uphold that a review before the High Court may lie after dismissal of an SLP without leave, but not that a second SLP is permissible.

“The petitioner is not entitled to a ‘second bite at the cherry’… These cases never conferred a right to file a second SLP against the same order already tested under Article 136.”

“Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC Is Explicit — No Appeal Lies from Review Dismissal”

The Supreme Court also noted that the Review Petition's dismissal by the High Court could not be independently challenged by filing an SLP when the main judgment had already attained finality.

Quoting T.K. David v. Kuruppampady Service Co-op Bank (2020) 9 SCC 92, the Court reiterated:

“When the main judgment of the High Court cannot be affected in any manner, no relief can be granted by this Court in a special leave petition filed against order rejecting the review application…”

In essence, the review mechanism is not a backdoor route to re-open settled issues, and the SLP jurisdiction cannot be misused for such indirect relitigation.

“Pending Reference Does Not Suspend Binding Precedent” — Article 141 Must Be Respected

The Court was categorical that reference to a larger bench does not allow judicial indiscipline:

“Just because the issue has been referred to a larger Bench does not mean that the Court will not abide by the binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution.”

The Court emphasized that finality in litigation is a foundational principle of rule of law, and observed:

“To entertain the present SLP would amount to challenging one of the foundation pillars of Rule of Law—namely, finality in litigation.”

Accordingly, it declined to entertain the petition and rejected the plea to tag the matter with the pending reference in Narahari.

Apex Court Reiterates That Special Leave Jurisdiction Cannot Be Exploited to Undermine Final Judgments

By holding that the second SLP filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and amounts to judicial abuse, the Supreme Court has reinforced the sanctity of its non-speaking dismissals, and declared the misuse of procedural mechanisms to prolong litigation as impermissible.

This decision reflects a growing trend in judicial pronouncements emphasizing that "litigation must come to an end", and that Article 136 does not confer a right to appeal, but only discretionary jurisdiction, which cannot be transformed into a vehicle of repeated challenges.

“Finality is not just a matter of form; it is the cornerstone of justice.”

Date of decision : 01 September 2025