Meaning and Definition
Res Judicata is derived from Latin where “Res” means “subject matter” and “judicata” means “adjudged” or decided, together meaning “a matter adjudged”. The principle ensures that once a matter is finally decided by a competent court, no party can be permitted to reopen it in subsequent litigation.
Legal Basis
Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) embodies the doctrine of Res Judicata. The section provides that “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”.
Essential Conditions for Res Judicata
For Res Judicata to apply, the following conditions must be satisfied:
-
Same Matter in Issue: The issue in the subsequent case must be directly and substantially the same as decided in the earlier case
-
Same Parties: The parties in the subsequent suit must be the same as, or claim under, the parties in the earlier suit
-
Litigating Under the Same Title: The parties must litigate in both cases under the same legal capacity or title
-
Decision by a Competent Court: The court deciding the earlier matter must have jurisdiction over the subject matter
-
Final Decision: The matter must have been finally decided by the earlier court on its merits
Constructive Res Judicata
Meaning and Scope
Constructive Res Judicata is an extension of the principle of Res Judicata. It applies to matters that could have been raised in a previous suit but were not. This doctrine prevents a party from bringing a second suit on issues arising from the same set of facts, provided the party had a fair opportunity to raise the new issue in the first suit.
Legal Foundation
The principle finds its origin in Order II Rule 2 read with Section 11 of the CPC, specifically Explanation IV of Section 11. Explanation IV provides that “any matter which might or ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in a former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit”.
Key Differences Between the Two Doctrines
| Aspect | Res Judicata | Constructive Res Judicata |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Bars re-litigation of matters actually decided | Bars matters that could/should have been raised but weren’t |
| Requirement of Pleading | Matter must have been alleged by one party and admitted/denied by the other | No requirement of actual pleading – applies to matters that “might and ought” to have been raised |
| Hearing Requirement | Case must have been heard and finally decided | No hearing required for the specific matter, as it was never raised |
| Legal Basis | Direct application of Section 11 CPC | Based on Explanation IV of Section 11 CPC |
Objectives and Purposes
Both doctrines serve similar fundamental purposes:
-
Finality of judgments – Preventing endless litigation
-
Protection against harassment – No repeat lawsuits on same matters
-
Judicial efficiency – Saving courts’ valuable time and resources
-
Prevention of multiplicity of proceedings – Avoiding unnecessary legal battles
Legal Maxims Governing These Principles
The doctrines are governed by three fundamental legal maxims:
-
Res Judicata Pro Veritate Accipitur – A judgment is accepted as the truth
-
Nemo Debet Lis Vexari Pro Eadem Causa – No one should be vexed twice for the same cause
-
Interest Republicae Ut Sit Finis Litium – Litigation must come to an end for societal well-being
Scope of Application
Both principles apply across multiple legal domains:
-
Civil Cases – Under Section 11 of CPC
-
Criminal Cases – Prevents double jeopardy under Section 300 of Cr.P.C.
-
Constitutional Law – Reinforced under Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution
-
Writ Proceedings – Supreme Court held in M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka (2011) that Constructive Res Judicata applies to writ petitions
Exceptions to Both Doctrines
While these doctrines ensure legal stability, certain exceptions allow flexibility:
-
Fraud or Misrepresentation – If judgment was obtained by deceit, it can be challenged
-
Lack of Jurisdiction – If the court had no authority, the decision is void
-
New Evidence – Strong new evidence that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence
-
Change in Law – Subsequent changes in law affecting parties’ rights
Judicial Recognition
The Supreme Court has consistently upheld these principles. In Employee Welfare Association v. Union of India, the Court ruled that “the principle of Res Judicata is not a technical rule, it is a rule of public policy”. The Court emphasized that Res Judicata is an acknowledged principle of law essential for delivering fair justice.
These doctrines together form a comprehensive framework ensuring that litigation reaches finality while preventing abuse of the judicial process through repetitive or piecemeal litigation strategies.