SUPREME COURT CAUTIONS AGAINST FRIVOLOUS PLEAS QUESTIONING ITS RTE ACT RULING:

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed strong disapproval of a writ petition that sought to challenge its earlier judgment exempting minority educational institutions from the applicability of the Right to Education (RTE) Act. While hearing the matter, the Court made it clear that such petitions undermine the authority of the judiciary and constitute a serious misuse of constitutional remedies. A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan imposed costs of Rs.1 lakh on the petitioner, observing that the penalty should serve as a deterrent to others who may attempt to file similar pleas.

The petition had been filed by the NGO United Voice for Education Forum, which questioned the constitutional validity of the exemption granted to minority educational institutions from the RTE Act. The petitioner contended that granting such exemption amounted to a blanket immunity that violated the principles of equality and fairness in access to education. The plea sought directions from the Supreme Court to reconsider its settled position that minority institutions are outside the purview of the RTE Act.

At the outset, the Bench expressed its deep displeasure with the very filing of the petition. The Court noted that the petitioner was effectively attempting to challenge a final judgment of the Supreme Court by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution, which was impermissible. The judges observed that allowing such petitions would erode the credibility and finality of judicial decisions and disturb the functioning of the entire judicial system. They remarked that repeated challenges to concluded judgments, especially before the same Court, amounted to a gross abuse of the process of law.

The Bench also directed sharp criticism at the legal advice that led to the filing of the plea. The Court emphasized that advocates, as officers of the court and trained legal professionals, bear a responsibility to uphold the integrity of the judicial system. Filing petitions that question the authority of the Supreme Court itself, the Bench noted, reflects a serious lapse in professional responsibility. The judges observed that indiscriminate use of writ jurisdiction to reopen settled law could compel the Court to consider imposing penalties not only on litigants but also on legal practitioners who encourage such actions.

While refraining from initiating contempt proceedings, the Court made it clear that the conduct in question came dangerously close to inviting such action. The Bench stated that it was exercising restraint in limiting the consequences to the imposition of costs, but warned that repeated instances of similar misuse would not be treated leniently in the future. The judges emphasized that litigants and lawyers must understand the gravity of approaching the Supreme Court and the limited scope within which its extraordinary jurisdiction can be invoked.

The Court reiterated that the issue raised in the petition had already been conclusively settled in its 2014 judgment, which held that the RTE Act does not apply to minority educational institutions protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. That decision recognized the constitutional right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, free from certain statutory obligations that may interfere with their autonomy.

Concluding the hearing, the Supreme Court underscored that the judiciary’s authority rests on respect for finality of judgments and responsible litigation. The imposition of costs, the Bench observed, was intended to send a clear message that the Court would not tolerate attempts to destabilize the judicial system through frivolous or misguided petitions.