Article 32 Limits: Scope of Relief and Jurisdiction Clarified by Court

The Court found the petition under Article 32 to be an abuse of process due to seeking reliefs beyond its purview regarding control over Church properties. It clarified that mandamus cannot establish an independent Tribunal or direct a State to pass a law, as these fall outside its jurisdiction. Challenging a previous Supreme Court judgment through Article 32 was deemed impermissible, leading to the dismissal of the petition for lack of maintainability. The ruling underscores the restricted scope of relief under Article 32 and the inability to contest prior judgments through this avenue.

---

---

Issues:
1. Abuse of process in a petition under Article 32 seeking various reliefs related to control over Church properties.
2. Legality of issuing a mandamus for setting up an independent Tribunal or directing the State to pass a law.
3. Maintainability of a petition under Article 32 to challenge a previous judgment of the Supreme Court.

Analysis:

1. The petition under Article 32 was deemed an abuse of process due to the reliefs sought regarding the control over Church properties. The petition requested the establishment of an independent Tribunal comprising retired High Court judges to determine Church control, execution of Tribunal decisions, passing of a law by the State of Kerala, and protection of fundamental rights under the Constitution.

2. The Court clarified that a mandamus cannot be issued for setting up an adjudicatory body or tribunal, as it falls under the jurisdiction of the Constitution and organization of courts, not within the Supreme Court's purview. Additionally, directing a State legislature to enact a law is beyond the Court's authority. The petition aimed to challenge a previous judgment of the Court, indicating grievance against it, which is not a valid reason for instituting a petition under Article 32.

3. The Court concluded that a party aggrieved by a judgment of the Supreme Court cannot seek recourse through a petition under Article 32. The petitioners' dissatisfaction with a previous judgment was not a valid ground for the petition's maintainability. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition, stating it cannot be entertained, and disposed of any pending applications.

This judgment highlights the limitations of seeking relief through Article 32, emphasizing the specific scope of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and the inadmissibility of challenging previous judgments through such petitions.

---