S. NARAHARI & Ors. v. S.R. KUMAR & Ors.

HELD: 1. If a dismissal of Special Leave Petition by way of a nonspeaking order is not considered law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the same also cannot be considered as res judicata, and therefore, in every such dismissal, even in cases where the dismissal is by way of a withdrawal, the remedy of filing a fresh Special Leave Petition would still persist. Further, if on the said reasoning, a remedy to file a review in the High Court is allowed, then the same reasoning cannot arbitrarily exclude the filing of a subsequent Special Leave Petition. [Para 39] [1019-F-G]

2. This Court is aware of the fact that such an interpretation, if expanded beyond the specific scope of filing a review in the High Court is allowed, it would open the floodgates of litigation, and would essentially mean that every dismissal of Special Leave Petition must be accompanied with reasons declaring the same. [Para 40][1020-A-B]

3. Therefore, to put a quietus to such an issue, it is necessary for the same to be adjudicated and deliberated upon by a larger bench of this Court. [Para 41][1020-C] 1010 S. NARAHARI AND ORS. v. S.R. KUMAR AND ORS. 1011