Article 32 cannot be used to collaterally attack a final Supreme Court judgment; proper remedy lies in review or other recognised process.

A writ petition under Article 32 cannot be used to collaterally challenge a final judgment or order of the Supreme Court passed under Article 136, even if the petitioner alleges error or lack of jurisdiction. The proper recourse against such a decision lies only in remedies recognised by law, such as review, rather than a fresh writ questioning the Court's own determination. On that basis, the challenge was held not maintainable and was rejected at the threshold for want of maintainability.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is maintainable to challenge a judgment and order of the Supreme Court passed under Article 136.

Analysis: The writ petition sought to reopen a final decision of the Supreme Court by asserting that the earlier order was without jurisdiction and a nullity. The governing principle applied was that a judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be subjected to collateral challenge through a fresh writ petition under Article 32. The proper remedies, if any, lie in review or other remedies recognised by law, not in a writ petition questioning the correctness of the Court's own decision.

Conclusion: A writ petition under Article 32 challenging the Supreme Court's judgment and order passed under Article 136 is not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected at the threshold for want of maintainability, leaving no substantive relief granted.

Ratio Decidendi: A final judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be assailed by a fresh writ petition under Article 32 on the ground that it is erroneous or without jurisdiction; such a challenge is not maintainable.

---