Introduction
The rule of res judicata is designed to stop the same dispute from being fought over repeatedly. Constructive res judicata is an extension of this principle. It means that if a party could have raised an argument or defense in an earlier case but failed to do so, the law will treat that issue as if it had already been decided. This prevents people from splitting their claims into parts or prolonging litigation by raising issues one at a time. ⚖️🔍📑
Legal Basis
Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 explains the principle of res judicata.
Explanation IV to Section 11 states:
Any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of defence or attack in a former suit shall be deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue in that suit.
Order II Rule 2 CPC is related but different. It stops a person from splitting one cause of action into many suits, while Explanation IV treats omitted arguments as already decided. 📖⚖️🖋️
Basic Idea & Supporting Principles
Nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem causa — No one should be troubled twice for the same cause.
Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium — It is in society’s interest that litigation must come to an end.
Res judicata pro veritate accipitur — A court’s decision must be accepted as true. 📚🧾⚖️
When Does Constructive Res Judicata Apply?
Same parties or their representatives are involved.
The earlier case was decided by a competent court.
The later issue could have been raised in the earlier case and should have been raised at that time.
The earlier case was heard and finally decided.
The later case attempts to re‑open what should have been handled before.
Exam Tip: Remember the “might and ought” test. It is not enough that an argument could have been raised; it must also be one that should have been raised. 📝📌📖
Application Beyond Suits
The principle applies not only to civil suits but also to writ petitions under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution.
It applies at different stages of the same case.
It can apply to Public Interest Litigations (PILs) where grounds could have been argued earlier.
Section 141 CPC excludes writs from the procedure of the CPC, but courts still apply the principle of finality. ⚖️📜✅
Landmark Cases
Daryao v. State of U.P. (1961) — Res judicata, including constructive res judicata, applies to writs. One cannot file under Article 32 after losing under Article 226 on the same issues.
State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain (1977) — A dismissed police officer filed a second case raising a point he should have raised earlier. The Court barred it under constructive res judicata.
Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi (1960) — Final decisions in one stage of a case bind later stages of the same case.
Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (1986) — Grounds available in the first round of a PIL cannot be raised later.
Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board (1999) — Emphasized the role of public policy and finality.
Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar (2005) — Res judicata applies even at later stages of the same proceeding.
M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka (2011) — Confirmed the application of constructive res judicata in service and writ cases.
S.C. Gupta v. Union of India (Delhi HC, 2025) — Reiterated that constructive res judicata applies to writ petitions.
Henderson v. Henderson (1843, UK) / Greenhalgh v. Mallard (1947, UK) — English precedents showing that issues which could and should have been raised earlier cannot be raised later.
Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna (SC, 2024) — The Supreme Court applied the Henderson principle in India, preventing parties from withholding grounds for later use. 📖⚖️🔎
Key Differences
Res judicata vs. Constructive res judicata: the first bars what was decided; the second bars what should have been raised earlier.
Explanation IV vs. Order II Rule 2: the first concerns omitted grounds, the second deals with splitting causes of action.
Res judicata vs. Issue estoppel: issue estoppel concerns facts or law actually decided; constructive res judicata concerns issues left out. 📘⚖️🗂️
Exceptions
Constructive res judicata does not apply when:
The earlier court had no jurisdiction.
The earlier decision was obtained by fraud or collusion.
The law has changed due to new legislation or later judgments.
The later case is based on a different cause of action or facts.
It involves some pure questions of law, especially jurisdictional issues. 🚫⚖️📜
Practical Tests
Was the issue available in the earlier case?
Did the party have a duty to raise it?
Did the party have a fair opportunity to raise it?
Would raising it now amount to abuse of process?
Example (Service Law): An employee challenges dismissal for lack of fair hearing. His writ is dismissed. Later, he files a suit claiming the dismissal authority lacked power. Since this ground should have been raised earlier, the second case is barred (see Nawab Hussain). ⚖️📖🔍
Exam Writing Tips (15‑Mark Answer)
Start with Section 11 CPC, Explanation IV, and explain the “might and ought” rule.
List essentials in clear, simple points.
Show application to writs and later stages of cases.
Contrast with Order II Rule 2 and issue estoppel.
Support with landmark cases.
Conclude with exceptions. 📝📚⚖️
Conclusion
Constructive res judicata prevents arguments from being raised piece by piece in different cases. If a point could and should have been raised earlier, the law assumes it was already decided. This ensures fairness, saves court time, and protects the finality of judgments, while still allowing exceptions such as fraud or lack of jurisdiction. ⚖️✅📘
