Supreme Court Clarifies Filing another SLP after Dismissal Violates Rule of Law

On September 1, 2025, the Supreme Court on SLP dismissal clarified that filing a fresh Special Leave Petition (SLP) against a High Court order, after an earlier SLP challenging the same order has been dismissed, amounts to abuse of the process of court.

A bench of Justices Manmohan and N. V. Anjaria emphasized that such re-litigation undermines the principle of finality in litigation, a cornerstone of the rule of law. The Court explained that once an SLP against a particular High Court judgment is dismissed, a second attempt would effectively amount to sitting in appeal over its earlier order of dismissal.

Court’s Rationale

The bench reasoned that entertaining a new SLP on the same issue would reopen questions already settled under Article 136 of the Constitution. The judges stated that allowing the second petition would amount to reviewing or overruling the decision of a co-ordinate bench, which is legally impermissible.

The case involved challenges to Karnataka High Court orders dated January 30, 2014, and February 18, 2025. The petitioner had previously filed an SLP against the 2014 order, which was dismissed on July 1, 2014, by a non-speaking order stating no grounds for interference. Despite this, another SLP was filed, leading to the present proceedings.

Distinction from S Narahari Case                                              

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the issue was pending before a larger bench in S Narahari v. S. R. Kumar (2023) and sought to link the present matter with it. However, the Supreme Court on SLP dismissal rejected this contention. It clarified that in S Narahari, the earlier SLP had been withdrawn, not dismissed on merits, and therefore the consequences were different.

The Court further explained that a pending reference to a larger bench does not permit fresh litigation. Article 141 makes the law declared by the Supreme Court binding, and courts must follow it until a larger bench decides otherwise.

Review Petitions and Abuse of Process

Counsel also contended that the High Court wrongly dismissed the review petition by relying on the Supreme Court’s earlier refusal to interfere. Reference was made to Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) and Khoday Distilleries v. Sri Mahadeshwara (2019). The bench clarified that while those precedents affirm that a High Court review is maintainable after a non-speaking dismissal of an SLP, they do not allow the filing of another SLP against the same judgment.

The Supreme Court on SLP dismissal highlighted that Order XLVII Rule 7 of the CPC expressly prohibits appeals against dismissal of review petitions. Attempting to bypass this rule by filing a second SLP was deemed an abuse of process.

Final Observations

The Court also cited T. K. David v. Kuruppampady Service Cooperative Bank Ltd (2020), which held that once an SLP against the main judgment has been dismissed, that judgment attains finality and cannot be reopened indirectly.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court on SLP dismissal ruled that the second petition was impermissible re-litigation. It reaffirmed that finality in litigation is a foundation of the rule of law, and allowing repeated SLPs would erode judicial discipline. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Vasantalata Kom Vimalanand Mirjankar Rep By GPA Holder Vs Deepa Mavinkurve & Ors