Maintainability of Art 227 Petition Post-Apex Court’s Dismissal of SLP

Understanding the Doctrine of Merger and Its Impact on Subsequent Writ Petitions Under Article 227

A writ petition under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution is generally maintainable to challenge judicial orders passed by subordinate courts. However, the maintainability of such a petition after the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Supreme Court depends on the nature of the dismissal and the doctrine of merger.

Doctrine of Merger and Dismissal of SLPs

The doctrine of merger implies that when a higher court passes a judgment, the decision of the lower court merges into that of the higher court. However, the application of this doctrine varies based on how the SLP is dismissed:

1. Dismissal Without a Speaking Order (Non-Speaking Order): If the Supreme Court dismisses an SLP without providing reasons (non-speaking order), it indicates only that the Court chose not to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. Such a dismissal does not result in the merger of the lower court’s order into that of the Supreme Court. Consequently, a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the same order may still be maintainable. 
2. Dismissal With a Speaking Order (Reasoned Order): If the Supreme Court dismisses an SLP with reasons (speaking order), while the doctrine of merger may not apply, the reasons stated become binding under Article 141 of the Constitution. In such cases, the High Court is bound by the Supreme Court’s reasoning, and filing a writ petition under Article 227 on the same grounds would not be maintainable. 

Relevant Judgments

• Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1986): The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of an SLP by a non-speaking order does not preclude the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the same order.
• Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. (2019): The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of an SLP without a speaking order does not attract the doctrine of merger, allowing for the maintainability of a review petition in the High Court. 
• Kunhayammed and others  Versus State of Kerala and another (2000)
• V. Senthur and Another vs. M. Vijayakumar and Others (2021): The Court clarified that the dismissal of an SLP by a reasoned order does not attract the doctrine of merger but is binding on all courts and tribunals in India. 

The maintainability of a writ petition under Article 227 following the dismissal of an SLP by the Supreme Court largely hinges on the nature of the dismissal and the application of the doctrine of merger. The cited case laws provide nuanced insights into these legal principles, guiding the approach to such writ petitions.