Power under Article 142(1) of Constitution important, its practice must be respected: SC

By PTI

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court said on Monday Article 142(1) of the Constitution, which provides “wide and capacious power” to the apex courtroom to do full justice should be exercised in a good technique and with warning, as its verdict ends the litigation between occasions.

Article 142 of the Constitution provides with the enforcement of decrees and orders of the apex courtroom to do “complete justice” in any matter pending sooner than it.

As per Article 142(1), a decree handed or an order made by the apex courtroom is executable all by way of the territory of India.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice S Okay Kaul said the practice of vitality and discretion under Article 142(1) is legit and as per the Constitution, as long as ‘full justice’ required by the ‘set off or matter’ is achieved with out violating elementary concepts of regular or specific public protection.

“Given the expansive amplitude of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, the exercise of power must be legitimate, and clamours for caution, mindful of the danger that arises from adopting an individualistic approach as to the exercise of the Constitutional power,” said the bench, which moreover comprised Justices Sanjiv Khanna, A S Oka, Vikram Nath and J Okay Maheshwari.

The bench made these observations in its verdict which held the apex courtroom has the discretion to dissolve a marriage on the underside of “irretrievable breakdown” in practice of its plenary vitality under Article 142 (1) of the Constitution and would possibly grant divorce by mutual consent whereas meting out with the 6-month prepared interval mandated under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Dealing with Article 142 (1), the best courtroom said this provision, apparently distinctive as a result of it does not have any counterpart in most of the fundamental written Constitutions of the world, has its origin in and is impressed from the age-old concepts of justice, equity and good conscience.

“Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, which gives wide and capacious power to the Supreme Court to do ‘complete justice’ in any ’cause or matter’ is significant, as the judgment delivered by this court ends the litigation between the parties,” it said.

The prime courtroom said this vitality, like all powers under the Constitution, must be contained and managed, as a result of it has been held that discount based mostly totally on equity mustn’t disregard the substantive mandate of regulation based mostly totally on underlying elementary regular and specific issues with public protection.

“Restraint and deference are facets of the Rule of Law, and when it comes to the separation of the role and functions of the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, the exercise of power by this court to do ‘complete justice’, being for a ’cause or matter’, does not interfere with and encroach on the legislature’s power and function to legislate,” it said.

The bench said when the best courtroom exercises jurisdiction conferred by Article 142(1) to do ‘full justice’ in a ‘set off or matter’, it acts all through the 4 corners of the Constitution.

“The power specifically bestowed by the Constitution of India on the apex court of the country is with a purpose, and should be considered as integral to the decision in a ’cause or matter’. To do ‘complete justice’ is the utmost consideration and guiding spirit of Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India,” it said.

It well-known that the place the CPC (Code of Civil Procedure) and the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) are silent, the civil courtroom or the extreme courtroom respectively, can cross orders inside the curiosity of most people, for the easy motive that no legal guidelines is ready to contemplating all potential circumstances that may come up in future litigation and consequently current a course of for them.

It said the constitutional vitality conferred by Article 142(1) on the apex courtroom is simply not a replication of the inherent vitality vested with the civil courtroom under the CPC, and the extreme courtroom under the CrPC.

“Given the aforesaid background and judgments of this court, the plenary and conscientious power conferred on this court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, seemingly unhindered, is tempered or bounded by restraint, which must be exercised based on fundamental considerations of general and specific public policy,” it said.

The bench said elementary regular conditions of public protection test with the essential rights, secularism, federalism and totally different elementary choices of the Constitution and specific public protection should be understood as some categorical pre-eminent prohibition in any substantive regulation, and by no means stipulations and requirements to a particular statutory scheme.

Referring to a unique judgement of the apex courtroom, it said practice of vitality under Article 142(1) being therapeutic in nature, the best courtroom would not ordinarily cross an order ignoring or disregarding a statutory provision governing the subject, in addition to to steadiness the equities between conflicting claims of the litigating occasions by ironing out creases in a ‘set off or matter’ sooner than it.

“In this sense, this court is not a forum of restricted jurisdiction when it decides and settles the dispute in a ’cause or matter’. While this court cannot supplant the substantive law by building a new edifice where none existed earlier, or by ignoring express substantive statutory law provisions, it is a problem-solver in the nebulous areas,” it said.

“This is the reason why the power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India is undefined and uncatalogued, so as to ensure elasticity to mould relief to suit a given situation. The fact that the power is conferred only on this court is an assurance that it will be used with due restraint and circumspection,” it well-known.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court said on Monday Article 142(1) of the Constitution, which provides “wide and capacious power” to the apex courtroom to do full justice should be exercised in a good technique and with warning, as its verdict ends the litigation between occasions.

Article 142 of the Constitution provides with the enforcement of decrees and orders of the apex courtroom to do “complete justice” in any matter pending sooner than it.

As per Article 142(1), a decree handed or an order made by the apex courtroom is executable all by way of the territory of India.googletag.cmd.push(carry out() googletag.present(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice S Okay Kaul said the practice of vitality and discretion under Article 142(1) is legit and as per the Constitution, as long as ‘full justice’ required by the ‘set off or matter’ is achieved with out violating elementary concepts of regular or specific public protection.

“Given the expansive amplitude of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, the exercise of power must be legitimate, and clamours for caution, mindful of the danger that arises from adopting an individualistic approach as to the exercise of the Constitutional power,” said the bench, which moreover comprised Justices Sanjiv Khanna, A S Oka, Vikram Nath and J Okay Maheshwari.

The bench made these observations in its verdict which held the apex courtroom has the discretion to dissolve a marriage on the underside of “irretrievable breakdown” in practice of its plenary vitality under Article 142 (1) of the Constitution and would possibly grant divorce by mutual consent whereas meting out with the 6-month prepared interval mandated under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Dealing with Article 142 (1), the best courtroom said this provision, apparently distinctive as a result of it does not have any counterpart in most of the fundamental written Constitutions of the world, has its origin in and is impressed from the age-old concepts of justice, equity and good conscience.

“Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, which gives wide and capacious power to the Supreme Court to do ‘complete justice’ in any ’cause or matter’ is significant, as the judgment delivered by this court ends the litigation between the parties,” it said.

The prime courtroom said this vitality, like all powers under the Constitution, must be contained and managed, as a result of it has been held that discount based mostly totally on equity mustn’t disregard the substantive mandate of regulation based mostly totally on underlying elementary regular and specific issues with public protection.

“Restraint and deference are facets of the Rule of Law, and when it comes to the separation of the role and functions of the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, the exercise of power by this court to do ‘complete justice’, being for a ’cause or matter’, does not interfere with and encroach on the legislature’s power and function to legislate,” it said.

The bench said when the best courtroom exercises jurisdiction conferred by Article 142(1) to do ‘full justice’ in a ‘set off or matter’, it acts all through the 4 corners of the Constitution.

“The power specifically bestowed by the Constitution of India on the apex court of the country is with a purpose, and should be considered as integral to the decision in a ’cause or matter’. To do ‘complete justice’ is the utmost consideration and guiding spirit of Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India,” it said.

It well-known that the place the CPC (Code of Civil Procedure) and the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) are silent, the civil courtroom or the extreme courtroom respectively, can cross orders inside the curiosity of most people, for the easy motive that no legal guidelines is ready to contemplating all potential circumstances that may come up in future litigation and consequently current a course of for them.

It said the constitutional vitality conferred by Article 142(1) on the apex courtroom is simply not a replication of the inherent vitality vested with the civil courtroom under the CPC, and the extreme courtroom under the CrPC.

“Given the aforesaid background and judgments of this court, the plenary and conscientious power conferred on this court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, seemingly unhindered, is tempered or bounded by restraint, which must be exercised based on fundamental considerations of general and specific public policy,” it said.

The bench said elementary regular conditions of public protection test with the essential rights, secularism, federalism and totally different elementary choices of the Constitution and specific public protection should be understood as some categorical pre-eminent prohibition in any substantive regulation, and by no means stipulations and requirements to a particular statutory scheme.

Referring to a unique judgement of the apex courtroom, it said practice of vitality under Article 142(1) being therapeutic in nature, the best courtroom would not ordinarily cross an order ignoring or disregarding a statutory provision governing the subject, in addition to to steadiness the equities between conflicting claims of the litigating occasions by ironing out creases in a ‘set off or matter’ sooner than it.

“In this sense, this court is not a forum of restricted jurisdiction when it decides and settles the dispute in a ’cause or matter’. While this court cannot supplant the substantive law by building a new edifice where none existed earlier, or by ignoring express substantive statutory law provisions, it is a problem-solver in the nebulous areas,” it said.

“This is the reason why the power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India is undefined and uncatalogued, so as to ensure elasticity to mould relief to suit a given situation. The fact that the power is conferred only on this court is an assurance that it will be used with due restraint and circumspection,” it well-known.