Therefore, res judicata impacts not only actual matter determined, but every other matter which parties might or ought to have litigated and have decided as incidental to or essentially connected with subject matter of litigation. It includes every matter coming into legitimate purview of original action, both in respect of matters of claim and defence [Forward Construction Company v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, (1986) 1 SCC 100]. National Confederation of Officers Association of Central Public Sector Enterprises v. Union of India, (2022) 4 SCC 764 takes notice of applicability of res judicata and constructive res judicata to PILs

We believe, principles of constructive res judicata should not have been applied, given significant public interest at stake in this PIL.

_____

Then Chief Justice [*Footnote 27*] in Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 1 SCC 70 responded, Government is not like a private individual who can pick and choose a person with whom it will deal. When Government is trading with public, democratic nature of Government demands equality coupled with an absence of arbitrariness and discrimination in such transactions. Government’s activities have a public element and, therefore, they should be conducted with fairness and equality. State need not enter into any contract with anyone, but if it does so, it must do so fairly, without discrimination and without adopting an unfair procedure.

State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa, (1974) 1 SCC 19 cautioned, classification can pose a danger of creating artificial inequalities and thus to overdo classification is to undo equality. Therefore, classification has to be demonstrably based upon substantive differences and should promote relevant goals with constitutional validity.

In present case, principle of arbitrariness, as expounded in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3 in its puritan form, is applicable. It would not be wrong to say, Doctrine of Manifest Arbitrariness, as expounded in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1, is applicable. Shorn of pretence, this policy of State Government is an abuse of power meant to cater exclusively to affluent sections of society, disapproving and rejecting equal right of a common citizen and socio-economically disadvantaged.

– Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr. Rao V.B.J. Chelkani, [Civil Appeal No. 3791-3793 of 2011].

_____

‘Henderson Principle’ addresses issue of multiplicity in litigation by mandating, all claims and issues that could and ought to have been raised in a previous litigation should not be relitigated in subsequent proceedings, except in exceptional circumstances. Constructive res judicata contained in Section 11, Explanation VII, CPC originates from this principle. ‘Henderson Principle’ was approvingly referred to and applied in State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain, (1997) 2 SCC 806. This rule not only supports finality but also underscores ideals of judicial propriety and fairness.

–  Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna, [Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 158-159 of 2024 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5542-5543 of 2023] decided on 13.12.2024.

_____

Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 415 held, ‘res judicata pro veritate accipitur’ is no less applicable to criminal than to civil proceedings. Pritam Singh is binding concerning applicability of principle of res judicata in a criminal proceeding.

– Hon’ble Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, S.C. Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [Criminal Appeal No. 438 of 2018] decided on 16.04.2025.