Supreme Court rejects post-judgment “directions” in BK Pavitra—miscellaneous applications not maintainable; fresh proceedings required to challenge implementation

Case Name: B.K. Pavitra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: MA 1323 of 2019 in WP(C) Nos. 764/2018.

Date of Order: 19 March 2020

Bench: Justice U.U. Lalit and Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

Held: The Supreme Court held that miscellaneous applications styled as “directions” seeking to rework promotions on a post-based roster, apply creamy-layer exclusions, and restrain further action were not maintainable because they effectively mounted a substantive challenge to post-judgment executive steps. A final judgment cannot be altered or added to save for clerical slips; inherent powers do not permit bypassing the review jurisdiction or initiating a fresh merits inquiry through nomenclature. Any grievance against the Government Order dated 15 May 2019 and circular dated 24 June 2019 issued to implement B.K. Pavitra II must be pursued in independent proceedings.

Summary: After B.K. Pavitra II upheld Karnataka’s 2018 Act granting consequential seniority, the State withdrew its interim restraint and issued implementation instructions and FAQs. Applicants returned to the Supreme Court through miscellaneous applications asking the Court to direct post-based reservation from historical dates, enforce creamy-layer exclusions from the entry level, and prevent action absent cadre-wise adequacy exercises. The Court explained that these prayers did not seek clarification of its earlier judgment but attacked subsequent executive measures; under the Court’s rules, final judgments are not reopened via “directions,” and attempts to relabel review or fresh challenges as miscellaneous reliefs are impermissible. The proper course is to file substantive proceedings against the implementing Government Order and circular if they are alleged to be unlawful, rather than to invoke the Court’s inherent powers to reshape the concluded judgment.

Decision: Miscellaneous applications dismissed, with liberty to the applicants to pursue appropriate independent remedies; no opinion expressed on the merits of the State’s implementation steps.