MOHD. ASLAM versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MOHD. ASLAM versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

A writ petition under Article 32 cannot be maintained for reconsideration of a Supreme Court judgment on merits; apprehensions raised about misuse of religion based on Manohar Joshi judgment are unfounded, and any legislative deficiency must be cured by Parliament, not by judicial intervention.

Parties
Petitioner: Mohd. Aslam; Respondents: Union of India and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 March 1996
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) No. 135 of 1996 / Final Order on Merits
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Scope of Article 32, Corrupt Practices Under Representation of the People Act, Reconsideration of Supreme Court Judgments
Constitutional Law Election Law Scope of Article 32 Corrupt Practices Under Representation of the People Act Reconsideration of Supreme Court Judgments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd. Aslam

Petitioner

Union of India and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) No. 135 of 1996 / Final Order on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 32 can be used to seek reconsideration of a Supreme Court judgment on merits
  2. 2 Whether the judgment in Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil conflicts with secularism as defined in S.R. Bommai
  3. 3 Interpretation of sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

Ratio Decidendi

A writ petition under Article 32 cannot be maintained for reconsideration of a Supreme Court judgment on merits; apprehensions raised about misuse of religion based on Manohar Joshi judgment are unfounded, and any legislative deficiency must be cured by Parliament, not by judicial intervention.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Writ petition is dismissed