SUPREME COURT DIRECTS HIGH COURTS TO EITHER GRANT OR REFUSE RELIEF, CAUTIONS AGAINST ISSUING ORDERS BEYOND PLEADED ISSUES:

On October 6, 2025, the Supreme Court set aside certain directions issued by the Kerala High Court that had directed the Cochin Devaswom Board to re-fix licence fees and initiate a vigilance inquiry against the Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust. The Bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and KV Viswanathan, held that the High Court’s additional directions went beyond the scope of the writ petition filed by the appellants and were issued without providing them an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed by P. Radhakrishnan and another, trustees of the Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust, challenging portions of a Kerala High Court judgment dated August 9, 2023, in W.P.(C) No. 29089/2020.

The dispute arose from land allotted by the Cochin Devaswom Board to the Chinmaya Mission in 1974 for religious, cultural, and social purposes. Initially, the land was entrusted to the Trust on a nominal annual use charge of ₹101, later marginally revised to ₹142. In 2014, the Board unilaterally issued an order increasing the licence fee to ₹1.5 lakh per annum, with further revisions scheduled every three years. The Trust objected to this substantial hike, describing it as arbitrary and contrary to the original understanding. After the Board rejected the Trust’s review request and demanded arrears exceeding ₹20 lakh, the Trust approached the Kerala High Court seeking to quash the impugned orders. The High Court upheld the licence fee increase but went further by directing a vigilance inquiry into the original lease and ordering the Board to refix the fee afresh in accordance with a prior ruling.

The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that while the writ petition itself could be dismissed, the High Court’s additional directions went beyond the scope of the case and placed them in a worse position than before approaching the court. Justice Viswanathan, writing for the Bench, relied on precedents including Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India (2005) 12 SCC 219 and Ashok Kumar Nigam v. State of U.P. (2016) 12 SCC 797, reiterating that no petitioner should suffer adverse consequences merely for seeking judicial relief. The vigilance inquiry and fresh fee fixation risked imposing a heavier burden on the appellants than the orders they had originally challenged.

The Court emphasized that the appellants had only contested specific fee enhancement orders, and by directing a fresh fixation and a vigilance inquiry, the High Court had introduced new issues outside the pleadings. This violated the principles of judicial discipline and natural justice, as the appellants were not given notice or an opportunity to defend themselves against the additional directions. The Court observed that litigants approach courts to vindicate their rights, and if courts take parties by surprise by issuing orders beyond the scope of a petition, it may create a chilling effect on other prospective litigants. Such actions could leave parties wondering whether seeking justice might result in them being worse off than before, ultimately undermining access to justice and the rule of law.

The Supreme Court further noted that judicial orders should not cause reputational harm or initiate roving inquiries without necessity. In this case, the appellants had no opportunity to explain whether previous legal precedents were applicable to the transaction in question. Directing a Chief Vigilance Officer to hold a general inquiry into the leasing of the land was deemed unnecessary and potentially damaging to the reputation of the parties. The Court concluded that, if a High Court considers it essential to go beyond the pleadings, at a minimum, the affected parties must be given a chance to explain and defend themselves. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Kerala High Court’s additional directions.