Supreme Court of India· 16 September 2026

Does suppression of a material fact bar a writ petitioner from any relief, without more?

VINIT KUMAR & ORS v. STATE OF U.P

2026 INSC 997 · WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 123 OF 2013
Coram: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Alok Aradhe

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Article 32 of the Constitution o…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Suppression of a material fact bars a writ petitioner from any relief, without more.

Yes. Suppression of a material fact, without more, disentitles a writ petitioner to any relief. Here, the petitioners did not disclose that some of them had earlier filed a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench seeking the same relief, which had already been disposed of in terms of the Division Bench's judgment; this non-disclosure amounted to suppression of a material fact. (¶21)

Headnote

Constitution of India — Article 32 — Article 226 — CBI investigation — Suppression of material facts — Writ jurisdiction — Constitution of India — Articles 32, 226 — Restraint on CBI directions — Held: A direction for CBI investigation must not be issued as a matter of routine or merely on a party's allegations. Despite the wide powers under Articles 32 and 226, the Court must observe self-imposed limitations and require pleadings and material sufficient for such an inquiry. (¶23) Writ jurisdiction — Suppression of material facts — Held further: Suppression of a material fact, without more, disentitles a writ petitioner to any relief. The petitioners did not disclose an earlier writ petition by some of them seeking the same relief, already disposed of consistently with the Division Bench's judgment. Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs. (¶21, 24)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 21Secondly, the respondents have taken a specific stand, in paragraph 38 of the counter affidavit filed on 30.08.2013, that petitioners nos. 8 to 18 had filed a Writ Petition No. 2749 of 2013 before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court seeking the same relief and therefore, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. The said writ petition was disposed on 09.11.2012 in terms of the judgment dated 26.09.2012 of the Division Bench. This fact, that petitioner nos. 8 to 18 were parties to Writ Petition No. 2749 of 2013 finds no mention in the present writ petition, nor have the petitioners disclosed that said writ petition was disposed of on 09.11.2012, or whether that order was challenged by way Special Leave Petition before this Court. This non-disclosure amounts to suppression of material facts, and such conduct, without anything more, disentitles the petitioners to any relief.

Acts & Sections

Article 32 of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 226 of the Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of VINIT KUMAR & ORS v. STATE OF U.P — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Must a direction for CBI investigation be issued as a matter of routine or merely on a party's allegations?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections