Introduction:
In Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Pensioners Welfare Association (Regd.) & Ors., reported as 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1205, the Supreme Court of India authoritatively settled the procedural question of whether a second Special Leave Petition (SLP) is maintainable after the first SLP has been dismissed by a non-speaking order and a review petition before the High Court has also failed.
A Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that in the absence of express liberty granted by the Supreme Court while dismissing the first SLP, a second SLP is not maintainable. The Court clarified that while a party does not require permission to seek a review before the High Court after dismissal of an SLP by a non-speaking order, once such review is rejected, the litigation must end unless specific liberty to re-approach the Supreme Court had been granted earlier.
The judgment is significant as it reinforces the principles of finality of litigation, judicial discipline, and procedural certainty, particularly in cases where litigants attempt to reopen concluded issues through successive SLPs after exhausting review remedies.
Factual Background:
The dispute traces its origin to 2010, when retired employees of the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court, claiming entitlement to pensionary benefits. The pensioners contended that despite long years of service, they were being unfairly denied post-retirement benefits, which they claimed were part of their legitimate service conditions.
In 2012, a Single Judge of the High Court allowed the claims of the pensioners, holding that they were entitled to pensionary benefits. However, this relief was short-lived. In 2014, a Division Bench of the High Court overturned the Single Judge’s decision, not on merits, but on the ground of maintainability, thereby denying the pensioners substantive relief.
The matter remained dormant for several years until 2022, when the Supreme Court intervened. The Court revived the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) and remitted the matter to the High Court, directing it to decide the dispute on merits. This order effectively reopened the substantive controversy relating to pensionary benefits.
Acting on the Supreme Court’s directions, a Division Bench of the High Court, in February 2024, decided the case in favour of the pensioners, holding that they were indeed entitled to pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by this outcome, the Bank approached the Supreme Court by filing an SLP challenging the High Court’s February 2024 judgment.
On 23 September 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP by a non-speaking order, though it clarified that the question of law was left open. Importantly, the Court did not grant liberty to the Bank to re-approach it after pursuing any further remedies.
Subsequently, the Bank filed a recall application before the Supreme Court, but later withdrew it, with liberty confined only to filing a review before the High Court. Acting on this limited liberty, the Bank filed a review petition before the High Court, which was dismissed in April 2025.
Undeterred, the Bank once again approached the Supreme Court by filing a fresh SLP, challenging the High Court’s order dismissing the review petition. This second SLP gave rise to the central issue before the Supreme Court: whether such a second SLP was maintainable in law.
Issues for Consideration:
- Whether a second Special Leave Petition is maintainable after dismissal of an earlier SLP by a non-speaking order, followed by dismissal of a review petition by the High Court.
- Whether dismissal of the first SLP without reasons permits the litigant to re-agitate the same issue before the Supreme Court after failure of review proceedings.
- Whether express liberty from the Supreme Court is mandatory for maintainability of a second SLP in such circumstances.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner (The Bank):
Senior Advocate Mr. Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner Bank, contended that the dismissal of the first SLP by a non-speaking order did not operate as a bar to the maintainability of the second SLP. It was argued that such dismissal does not amount to affirmation of the High Court’s reasoning on merits and therefore does not attract principles akin to res judicata.
The petitioner emphasized that the Supreme Court had expressly left the question of law open while dismissing the first SLP. According to the Bank, this indicated that the Court did not intend to foreclose further scrutiny of the legal issues involved, particularly after the High Court had an opportunity to consider the matter in review jurisdiction.
It was further submitted that filing a review before the High Court after dismissal of an SLP is a recognized procedural course, and once such review is decided, the litigant should not be deprived of the right to approach the Supreme Court again. The Bank argued that denial of this opportunity would amount to curtailing access to justice and would elevate procedural technicalities over substantive rights.
The petitioner also contended that since the second SLP was technically directed against the High Court’s order dismissing the review petition, it constituted a fresh cause of action, distinct from the earlier SLP, and therefore could not be treated as a prohibited second challenge to the same judgment.
Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents (Pensioners):
Senior Advocate Mr. Kavin Gulati, appearing for the pensioners, strongly opposed the maintainability of the second SLP. He submitted that allowing successive SLPs in such circumstances would undermine the finality of judicial proceedings and encourage endless litigation.
The respondents argued that once the first SLP was dismissed, the High Court’s judgment on merits attained finality, subject only to the limited scope of review jurisdiction. The dismissal of the review petition by the High Court exhausted all permissible remedies available to the Bank.
It was emphasized that while a litigant does not need permission to seek review before the High Court after dismissal of an SLP, re-approaching the Supreme Court after failure of review requires express liberty, which was conspicuously absent in the present case. The respondents pointed out that the Bank had consciously withdrawn its recall application before the Supreme Court, with liberty restricted only to filing a review before the High Court, thereby accepting the procedural consequences.
The respondents further submitted that the plea that the second SLP was against the review order was merely a clever drafting device, as the substance of the challenge remained the same High Court judgment which had already been tested before the Supreme Court. Permitting such a course would open the floodgates for repetitive litigation and erode judicial discipline.
Court’s Judgment and Reasoning:
The Supreme Court dismissed the second SLP, holding it to be non-maintainable, and laid down clear principles governing such situations.
The Court first clarified the legal position that dismissal of an SLP by a non-speaking order does not bar the filing of a review petition before the High Court. No liberty from the Supreme Court is required for this purpose. This position flows from the understanding that a non-speaking dismissal does not amount to declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution.
However, the Court drew a crucial distinction between seeking review before the High Court and re-approaching the Supreme Court after such review has failed. The Bench observed that once the High Court refuses to exercise its review jurisdiction, the litigation must ordinarily come to an end.
In emphatic terms, the Court held:
“There is no doubt that a party does not require any liberty to move in review before the High Court after dismissal simpliciter of an SLP by a non-speaking order of this Court. However, if the High Court refuses to exercise review jurisdiction, it would not be just and proper to permit the same party to approach this Court again, in the absence of specific liberty having been granted by this Court.”
The Court reasoned that allowing a second SLP in such circumstances would defeat the very purpose of procedural finality and would result in the Supreme Court being converted into a forum for repeated challenges to the same cause. The Bench rejected the argument that dismissal of the first SLP with the question of law left open automatically entitled the petitioner to file another SLP after review proceedings.
The Court also noted that the Bank had withdrawn its recall application before the Supreme Court with liberty confined only to filing a review before the High Court. This conscious procedural choice further disentitled the Bank from approaching the Supreme Court again without express liberty.
Addressing the contention that the second SLP arose from a fresh cause of action, the Court held that the substance of the challenge remained unchanged, and the Bank was effectively attempting to re-agitate issues that had already attained finality. The dismissal of the review petition did not revive the right to approach the Supreme Court unless such liberty had been explicitly reserved earlier.
The Bench concluded that since no express liberty was granted while dismissing the first SLP, the second SLP was impermissible in law. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, reinforcing the doctrine that litigation must have a definitive end.
Legal Significance of the Judgment:
This decision reaffirms a critical procedural safeguard in Supreme Court practice. It clarifies that while non-speaking dismissal of an SLP does not bar review before the High Court, a second SLP after failure of review is barred unless the Supreme Court expressly permits such recourse.
The judgment strengthens the principles of finality, certainty, and judicial efficiency, and prevents abuse of process through repetitive filings. It also sends a clear signal to litigants and counsel that procedural strategies must be exercised with caution, as withdrawal or limited liberty can have binding consequences.