YOU CAN NOT CLOCK BACK BY - DIVYANSHI BHARDWAJ
YOU CAN NOT CLOCK BACK
(Explaining the Res Judicata principle as a set-up in
the court of Chanakya, according to the Dharmasthiya.)
AUTHORED BY - DIVYANSHI BHARDWAJ
Abstract
For purposes of navigating through
and understanding the paper, it is important to note that it has been set in
the Mauryan Empire, specifically, during Chandragupta Maurya’s dynasty. Chanakya,
in this hypothetical, will be the Chief Justice of the Empire; all the laws of
this Empire will be mirrored with the Indian Constitution, the Code of Civil
Procedure and the Law of Evidence.
According to the Arthashatras, there
were two kinds of courts during that era- the Dharmasthiyas, which were the
civil courts, and the Kantakasodhana, which were the criminal courts. The main
function of these latter courts was to resolve any cases that arose whenever
there was a violation of traditional rules and regulations, and the fines were
nominal only.
In this paper, Res Judicata will be
referred to as Prag-nyaya throughout, they way it was referred to in the
ancient times, according to Brihaspati Samriti.
Chanakya, CJ.
1. The petitioner, Suraj, is a worker
who ploughs wheat fields for a living. Before this, he used to work under a gold
merchant. To make sense of this writ petition, it’s essential to understand the
history and background of where this suit stems from.
2. According to the petitioner’s
claims in the previous suit that he filed against his former employer, Chaand,
the petitioner claimed that he was the workhorse of his former employer’s
business. Petitioner would give him ideas that helped his business bloom from
someone who only sold at a small shop here at Bodh Gaya, to someone who found a
respectable place at the Patliputra market that prides itself as a spot in the
prestigious Silk Route to sell cotton, and other luxurious items and jewellery
made of gold. In his previous suit, the petitioner also claimed that Chaand
promised to give him an executive managerial position that would someday turn
into the petitioner handling the business. After a publicly humiliating
scolding at the peak hours of the market for taking his lunch break for ten
minutes longer last year, the petitioner was fired from his job. The petitioner
initially filed a suit in the esteemed Dharmasthiya Court of Patliputra,
stating that this the where the issue happened and claimed territorial
jurisdiction on the basis of ‘this is where the business took place that day’,
but my wise friends transferred the suit to the Bodh Gaya Court stating for it
to be a much more competent Court, considering the subject matter and also
territorial jurisdiction stating that Patliputra was only a place where
business was held ‘once a year’; their business, and their voluntary residences
are both in Bodh Gaya.
3. This legal system recognises three
prime jurisdictions- one, pecuniary jurisdiction that applies according to the amount
or value of the suits that are to be filed before it. However, it’s critical to
steer through cases wherein the plaintiff undervalues or overvalues his/her
claim deliberately; second, territorial jurisdiction refers to the area over
which a particular court exercises influence, and lastly, subject matter
jurisdiction is the authority of a court to decide themselves if the matter
that is to be litigated before them is allowed or not. Any order that is passed
by a court that does not have proper jurisdiction will be a nullity.
4. The petitioner filed a suit
against his former employer in light of how he wasn’t given the job that he was
promised and that he was fired on insufficient grounds. His suit was first
filed at the Kantakasodhana, and was later, transferred to Dharmasthiya. This
hardship was also highlighted by the petitioner in his petition, and to clear
the doubt, his former suit being of civil nature, due to a breach of the
alleged contract, cannot be tried at a Kantakasodhana; the only court competent
enough to try it is a Dharmasthiya. Competency of a court refers to the legal
capability of a court to exercise jurisdiction over the subject of a suit.
Further, jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine a suit in a competent
court.[1]
5. Due to the reasons that the petitioner
had little to no proof about his prospective job, and the claims made by Chaand
that Suraj would regularly be lazy and late, and have a lot of arrogance for
his work, the petitioner lost the suit and was not allowed plead the same suit
again at any courts; after which, he has filed this writ petition.
6. The rule against which the
plaintiff has filed a writ in this Court is that of Prag-nyaya. This provision,
that is, Section 11 of the Dharmasthiya rule book[2],
embodies the concept of-
“if a person who has been defeated
in a civil suit according to law files his plaint once again, he must be told
that he has been defeated already”
According to Section 11 of the Dharm
asthiya[3] rule
book-
No court shall try any suit or issue
in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and
substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or between
parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title,
in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such
issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by
such Court.
7. Here, the phrase “former suit”
denotes a suit that has been decided previously. This concept, in this
dynasty’s courts, was best elaborated by my wise friend Justice Das who very
well explained-
“the principle of prag-nyaya is
based on the need of giving finality to judicial decisions. What it says is that
once a prag is nyaya, it shall not be adjudged again. It primarily applies
between past litigation and future litigation……neither party will be allowed in
a future suit or proceeding between the same parties to canvas the matter
again.”[4]
8. This concept embodies the rule of
conclusiveness, and it bars the plea of an issue that has been tried in an
earlier suit foundational on a plaint that was either substantially or directly
in issue, which later became final. In the later suit, functioning between the
same parties or their competencies in a competent Court, the decree in the
former suit would apply as Prag-nyaya. The most important element for this
doctrine to function and to apply is when both and/or all parties are the same
as in the suit decided earlier.
9. A few things that are important to
note here are that, number one, the phrase “former suit” denotes a suit which
has already been concluded with respect to the suit in front of another Court,
or the same Court. Number two, the competence of the Court shall be understood
regardless of any provisions as to a right of appeal, stemming from the Court’s
decision. Three, any material that might have, or ought to have been made
previously as a defence ground, or an attack ground, shall be deemed to have
been a concerned matter substantially and directly in issue in such suit. Four,
any relief that is claimed by the plaintiff, which is not expressly granted by
a Court’s decree shall be deemed to have been refused by such competent Court.
And five, any issue which has been heard and decided to its finality by a Court
of limited jurisdiction shall also work as Prag-nyaya.
10. It is important to understand
that the concept of Prag-nyaya does not mould out a right or an interest in
property, but merely works as a bar to further try the same issue over and over
again. Its main objective is to prevent a multiplicity of suits and trials of
the same matter and accords a finality to the matters in question because, at
the end of the day, it’s essential to put an end to vexatious litigations and
save the valued time of a Court. The ideals of Prag-nyaya are based on and for public
policies, and also for private policies. This is a universal rule[5]
for any civilization that follows proper law and order. This doctrine aims to
encourage justice, honesty and a fair administration and to avoid and safeguard
persons from law abuses.[6]
11. It has come to the Court’s notice
that before this, another individual had filed petitions regarding how Prag-Nyaya
goes against Article 32[7] of
our dynasty’s Constitution[8].
So the Court’s decided to explain the doctrine and put it to rest once and for
all, explaining how it does not step on the rights of the individuals, rather,
exists for the betterment of the individuals and the society at large.
12. The ideal of Prag-nyaya is based
on three ideals, which can also be traced back to Brihaspati Samriti-
1. ? ??????? ?????? ???????? ????? ???????? ???????? ?????
This means that no man should be
troubled by and for the same reason. It helps the individual approaching the
Court with the hope that there’ll be justice as soon as possible because, at
the end of the day, the Courts are set up to serve people and making them go
back and forth for the same matter will only lead them to pull their hair out.
The Courts are supposed to be a form of ending their misery and providing them
with justice.
2. ???????? ????? ????? ???????? ????? ?????
This means that it is in the best interest
of the State to end a lawsuit. It helps the State to move ahead from one suit
to another, and it saves the time and energy of the State to dispense justice
quicker.
3. ?????????????? ?????? ??? ???????????
This means that a judicial decision
that has been passed by the Court, must be accepted as correct. Here, however,
this Court would like to clarify that although this maxim is that of an
assertive nature, it’s important to know that we live in a society that is
governed by rules and regulations for the smooth running of this dynasty. And
with that ideal, it is important to acknowledge that what the law decides, is
the final verdict.
13. The petitioner contends that this
doctrine also infringes on his personal right to seek justice. On this matter,
this Court would again like to reiterate that the doctrine has been placed and
thoroughly practised so that there is a finality to the suits and justice is dispensed
on time and the aggrieved persons are not stuck circling courts.
14. Further, it is also important to
understand the important points with regard to when invoking Section 11 of
Dharmasthiya is justified. One, the matter-in-issue must be actually or
constructively in issue in the former suit; two, the suit must be between the
same parties, and with the same titles; three, the former suit must have been
tried by a competent court; and lastly, the matter-in-issue must’ve been heard
and decided to its finality.
15. Prag-nyaya, by its very essence,
means that the Court has decided its mind over the issue, and it has been heard
to its finality. It is essential that it must have been heard and decided to
its finality for this doctrine to kick in. However, if a suit is
dismissed on technical grounds, for instance, non-joinder of a necessary party,
then it would not operate as res judicata.[9]
This doctrine operates when the decision has been made by hearing and finally
deciding the suit on its merits.
16. Prag-nyaya is not found only in
Dharmasthiya; as a concept walking on the similar lines, we find another
concept named ‘estoppel’ in sakshya vidhi[10]. They
are similar in the sense that prag-nyaya is just an estoppel verdict that is
passed through a judgment. Sakshya vidhi clearly states that once proof is
submitted and that something has been proved to be true, then the Court quite
literally stops you from going back on your word. Prag-nyaya is estoppel, but
after the verdict has come out. But if, someone takes back their suit, as in
withdraws their suit, that suit will not stand as prag-naya because of the
simple fact that the suit never reached its finality, so something that has not
been decided, can’t not be re-heard. The main difference between estoppel and
prag-nyaya is that the former stops an individual from going back on his word
after it’s been proved, and the latter stops an individual from trying the same
suit, more than once.
17. It’s easy to be confused with the
assumption that prag-nyaya cannot operate if a writ petition is filed. That
also, through this judgment, shall be put to rest. Prag-nyaya would apply also
on writ petitions[11]
that have been filed under Article 32 of the Mauryan Constitution.[12]
The nature and character of this doctrine shall be upheld with esteem and shall
treat judgments pronounced by competent courts as binding.[13]
18. In extension, constructive prag-nyaya
applies on writ petitions as well[14].
Constructive prag-nyaya works as an artificial form of the doctrine of
prag-nyaya. The notion behind this is straightforward- if a party has the
opportunity to raise a plea, they must raise it during the same proceeding and
not leave for it to be raised as a defence or attack in the subsequent
proceeding. The idea behind this is also fairly simple- to bring the litigation
to its finality as soon as possible, for the public betterment. The case of Maurya
v Ramlal[15]
best explains this notion.
19. This Court, considering all facts
and circumstances, shall squash the writ petition filed by the petitioner,
Suraj, and upholds the validity of prag-nyaya. The court would also like to remind
him, that his former suit holds no merit without evidence and that proper
documentation is required while claiming a job because, without words on paper,
it shall always be ruled as fictitious.
20. This writ petition is dismissed.
No costs.
[1] Britannica, T. Editors of
Encyclopaedia ‘demurrer’ Encyclopedia Britannica, (April 12, 2018)
accessed 06 April 2023
[2] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
[4] Satyadhyan Ghosal v Deorijin Debi
AIR [1960] SC 941: [1960] 3 SCR 590
[5] In this suit, the SC held that res
judicata is a concept that is universally applied; M. Nagabhushana v State
of Karnataka, [2011] 3 SCC 408: [2011] 1 SCC (Civ) 733
[6] Ibid.
[7] Daryao v State of U.P., AIR
[1961] SC 1457: [1962] 1 SCR 574
[8] Constitution of India, 1950
[9] State of Maharashtra v National
Construction Co., [1996] 1 SCC 735
[10] Law of Evidence, 1872
[11] M.S.M. Sharma v Dr Shree Krishna,
AIR [1960] SC 1186: [1961] 1 SCR 96
[12] Constitution (n 7)
[13] Daryao (n 6)
[14] Devilal Modi v STO, AIR
[1965] SC 1150: [1965] 1 SCR 686
[15] State of U.P. v Nawab Hussain [1977]
2 SCC 806