Res Judicata And Its Meaning

Res Judicata is a phrase derived from a Latin maxim that means "the thing has been judged," implying that the issue in front of the court has already been decided by another court, between the same parties. As a result, the court will dismiss the case as ineffective. 

 

Res Judicata is a legal concept that can be applied to both civil and criminal cases. The term is also used to 'bar re-litigation' of such cases between the same parties, which is not the case in both legal systems. Following the announcement of a final judgement in a lawsuit, subsequent judges who are faced with a suit that is identical to or substantially similar to the previous one would apply the Res Judicata doctrine "to preserve the effect of the first judgement." This is to avoid injustice to the parties in a supposedly closed case, but perhaps most importantly, to avoid wasting the Judicial System's resources and time. As a result, the same case cannot be brought up again in the same or a different Indian court. This is simply to prevent them from multiplying judgments, so that a successful plaintiff cannot recover damages from the defendant for the same injury twice. The English Common Law system gave rise to the concept of Res Judicata, which is derived from the overarching concepts of judicial economy, consistency, and finality. It was derived from common law and incorporated into the Code of Civil Procedure, which was later adopted by the Indian legal system as a whole.

 

The doctrine of Res Judicata is based on three Roman maxims

 

(a) Nemo debetlisvaxari pro eadem causa which means that no man should bevexed (annoyed) twice for the same cause;

 

(b) Interest republicaeut sit finislitium, which means that it is in the state's best interests to bring a lawsuit to a close; and

 

(c) The phrase "re judicata pro veritateoccipitur," which means "judicial decision," must be accepted as correct.

The following are the pre-requisites for Res Judicata:

1) There must be a final judgement;

 

2) The judgement must be on the merits;

 

3) The claims must be the same in the first and second suits;

 

4) The parties in the second action must be the same as the parties in the first action, or they must have been represented by a party in the first action.

 

Any person whose fundamental rights have been violated has the right to file a complaint with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's power under Art. 32 is limited to the enforcement of fundamental rights. Other rights violations require seeking redress from appropriate courts. As a result, the Supreme Court's role in right cases brought before it under Article 32 is limited to the enforcement of fundamental rights.

 

Any other court can be empowered by Parliament to issue all kinds of directions, orders, and writs. However, this can be done without jeopardising the Supreme Court's above-mentioned powers. Because the high courts already have these powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, any other court here does not include them.

 

As a result, it is clear that the Supreme Court was established to protect and defend citizens' fundamental rights. For that purpose, it has been given the 'original' and 'wide' powers. Original in that an aggrieved citizen can go directly to the Supreme Court, rather than having to appeal. Its power is broad because it extends beyond issuing orders or directions to include all types of writs.

 

Article 32's goal is to provide a guaranteed, effective, quick, low-cost, and quick remedy for the protection of fundamental rights. Article 32 can only enforce the Constitution's Fundamental Rights, not other rights such as non-fundamental constitutional rights, statutory rights, customary rights, and so on. A fundamental right violation is a precondition for exercising the right conferred by Article 32. In other words, under Article 32, the Supreme Court cannot rule on a question that does not concern Fundamental Rights. Article 32 cannot be used to determine the constitutionality of a law or executive order unless it directly violates one or more of the fundamental rights.

 

The Supreme Court has original but not exclusive jurisdiction over the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It runs concurrently with the high court's Article 226 jurisdiction. It gives the high court the authority to issue all kinds of directions, orders, and writs for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. When a citizen's Fundamental Rights are violated, the aggrieved party has the option of directly petitioning the high court or the Supreme Court.

 

Because the right guaranteed by Article 32 (i.e., the right to petition the Supreme Court if a fundamental right is violated) is a fundamental right in and of itself, the availability of an alternative remedy is not a bar to relief under Article 32. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has ruled that where relief from the high court is available under Article 226, the aggrieved party must go to the high court first.