Supreme Court Dismisses WB Madrasa Petition, Upholds Service Commission Act, Imposes Heavy Cost
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by the Managing Committee of Contai Rahamania High Madrasah that sought a reconsideration of the court’s own 2020 judgment which had upheld the constitutional validity of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih not only rejected the petition but also imposed a heavy cost of ₹1,00,000 on the petitioners for what it termed an “abuse of the process of this Court.”
The Core of the Dispute
The petitioners had approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, requesting two primary reliefs:
- A reconsideration of the 2020 judgment in the case of Sk. Mohd. Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai High Madrasah, which they argued violated the rights of minority institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution.
- That the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for the formation of a larger Constitutional Bench to review the correctness of the 2020 law.
The petitioners drew inspiration from a recent August 2025 judgment (Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India), where the court had entertained a petition concerning the reconsideration of a death sentence in light of new judicial developments.
Court’s Scathing Observations and Key Quotes
The bench, however, swiftly distinguished the present case from the death penalty matter, stating that the petitioners’ reliance on it was “misconceived.” The court delivered several crucial observations that formed the bedrock of its decision:
On the 2020 Verdict’s Validity: The court reaffirmed the strength of its 2020 ruling, noting that it was delivered after a “threadbare consideration of the rival contentions” and had conclusively “declared the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 to be constitutionally valid.”
On the Binding Nature of Judicial Decisions: The court invoked the authoritative precedent set by a nine-judge Constitution Bench in the 1967 case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra. It emphatically stated that “a judicial decision does not offend any Fundamental Right.” This principle made the present petition, which challenged a previous judgment for allegedly violating Article 30 rights, fundamentally “wholly untenable and barred.”
On the Misapplication of Precedent: The bench clarified that the Vasanta Sampat Dupare case involved the continuing validity of a death sentence, not a challenge to a finalized judicial verdict on constitutional grounds. Therefore, the court held that “Vasanta Sampat Dupare (supra) would not apply to a case of the present nature.”
The Final Order and Costs
Concluding that the petition had no legal merit and was an attempt to re-agitate a settled matter, the bench dismissed it outright.
In a move underscoring its disapproval, the court imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 (One Lakh Rupees) on the petitioners. The amount is to be paid to any society or organization dedicated to caring for children afflicted with cancer. The Secretary General of the Supreme Court has been directed to identify a suitable organization, and the costs must be deposited in the court’s registry within one month.
This firm verdict reinforces the finality of the Supreme Court’s judgments and serves as a strong deterrent against frivolous petitions seeking to reopen settled points of law.
FAQs
1. Why did the Supreme Court call this petition an “abuse of process” and impose a cost?
The Court ruled that the petitioners’ core argument—that a previous Supreme Court judgment itself could violate Fundamental Rights—was legally untenable. It cited a binding precedent from a nine-judge Constitution Bench (Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra) which authoritatively held that “a judicial decision does not offend any Fundamental Right.” Since the petition was based on a fundamentally flawed legal premise, the Court deemed it a frivolous misuse of its valuable time and authority, warranting a heavy cost to deter such attempts.
2. What was the petitioners’ main argument, and why did the Court reject it?
The petitioners argued that the Court’s 2020 verdict (Sk. Mohd. Rafique v. Managing Committee), which upheld the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, infringed upon the rights of minority educational institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution. They sought a reconsideration by a larger Constitutional Bench.
The Court rejected this for two key reasons:
Finality of Judgment: The 2020 decision was reached after a “threadbare consideration of the rival contentions” and was final.
Incorrect Legal Precedent: They incorrectly relied on a death penalty case (Vasanta Sampat Dupare). The Court clarified that case dealt with the continuing validity of a sentence, not a challenge to a finalized judgment on constitutional grounds, and thus was not applicable.
3. Where will the ₹1 lakh cost imposed by the Court go?
The Court ordered that the cost of ₹1,00,000 be paid to any society or organization that takes care of children afflicted by cancer. The Secretary General of the Supreme Court has been tasked with identifying a suitable organization. The petitioners must deposit the amount in the Court’s registry within one month for it to be directed to the chosen charity. This serves as a meaningful deterrent while supporting a social cause.