Introduction
Section 10 of the CPC (Code of Civil Procedure) of 1908 outlines the doctrine of res sub judice, a latin term which means under judgement. It is a crucial legal principle which aims to prevent concurrent adjudication of various suits which involve the same parties and same subject matter.
The doctrine ensures that when a case is initiated and pending in front of a competent court of adjudication, no other court should adjudicate on the same matter concurrently. The intent remains to ensure that there are no conflicting judgements and also to ensure judicial efficiency and conserve resources that might be exhausted on duplicative legislation. A recent example of this was when the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court did not entertain a PIL with regards to seeking a ban on pornographic apps and websites stating that it was already pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Aim and Conditions for Res Sub Judice
The objective of the doctrine of res sub judice is to allow clarity in legal matters by making sure that every case receives a singular focus. This is because when a singular matter is raised in different suits, it may lead to varying judgements which would undermine the faith in the legal system. The application of the doctrine helps to safeguard against harassment that might take place due to parallel proceedings.
For the doctrine of res sub judice to be applicable, three conditions need to be satisfied. These are, firstly, that there must be two suits. One that has already been filed and another that has been subsequently instituted. The second condition is that both the suits must have matter that is directly and substantially the same. This can be by the way of the same parties or legal representatives litigating under the same title. Lastly, the initial suit must be pending before a court of competent jurisdiction, i.e. the court must have the authority to provide the relief sought in the suit.
Importantly, res sub judice does not prohibit the filing of another suit; it only delays the trial in the latter case until the former has been disposed of. The implication of this subtle distinction is that while parties might make filings as they wish, the trial process is temporarily stayed in order to facilitate judicial economy.
Where the litigation involves an issue already before the courts, then res sub judice requires that the latter should be stayed to allow the earlier filed suit to be determined without the interference of concurrent proceedings over the same subject matter. The courts have this power to ensure that the litigations are conducted with due respect and fairness for the parties.
Conclusion
Res sub judice is not an absolute doctrine. Exceptions to it also exist. For example, if the suits are based on causes of action that differ or if the parties are not the same, the doctrine may not apply. Interim relief can also be sought in a case that is stayed under this doctrine, hence allowing courts some flexibility while upholding the core objectives of this principle.
In sum, res sub judice lies at the heart of civil litigation, halting the trial of issues already considered elsewhere. This avoids a situation whereby similar matters might be litigated concurrently in different fora and thus ensures consistency of judicial decisions, saves resources, and shields litigants against the uncertainties and anxieties characteristic of multiple legal actions. As has been shown through various legal precedents, adherence to this doctrine goes to the heart of the integrity of the system and its ability to deliver justice.
About Author
Anwita Mishra, a law student at Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai, is an emerging legal writer with a keen interest in the changing dynamics of law. Deeply passionate about Media Law, Constitutional Law, and Family Law, she engages with contemporary legal developments through insightful research and writing.