Ocular Evidence Prevails Over Medical Findings: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Despite Negative Semen Report & Police Lapses High Court Cannot Pass Inconsistent Orders: Supreme Court Quashes Demolition Order Passed Despite Earlier Restraint In CMDA Regularisation Dispute Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Open University Degrees Obtained Prior To 2017 Cut-Off Must Be A Polluter Before Being Held Absolutely Liable: Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Order Against Art Of Living Over Yamuna Event, Orders ₹5 Cr Refund Father Cannot Be Deprived Of Minor's Custody Unless Proved Unfit: Allahabad High Court Hands Over 4-Yr-Old Child To Father, Sets Aside Trial Court Order Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Integral To Personal Liberty': Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail As 24 Witnesses Remain Unexamined No Specific Chemical Opinion That Seized Substance Was Ganja: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Under Section 2(iii)(b) NDPS Act Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Simplicitor No Ground For Externment': Karnataka High Court Quashes Raichur SDM Order Order VI Rule 16 CPC | Defendants Enjoy Greater Latitude In Altering Defence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Explains Doctrinal Leeway Under CPC Boarding Running Train Not Self-Inflicted Injury: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Denying Compensation Possession Of One Co-Sharer Is Possession Of All: J&K&L High Court Cannot Invoke Article 226 For Registering FIR Or Restoring Water Supply: Kerala High Court Natural Guardian's Sale Of Minor's Property Without Court Nod Is Voidable, Extinguishes If Not Challenged Within 3 Years Of Majority: Madras High Court Orissa High Court Rejects Cancer-Survivor Husband's Plea To Transfer Maintenance Case Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Defect In Served Copy Of Affidavit Not Fatal: Supreme Court Restores Election Petition Challenging Lok Sabha Poll Result, Clarifies Law On Form-25 Attestation

Limits of Article 142: Inability to Bypass Statutory Provisions or Extend Time Limits Beyond What Is Explicitly Allowed: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a pivotal ruling dated October 4th, 2023, the Supreme Court of India has underscored the limitations on the exercise of its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that these powers cannot be used to bypass substantive statutory provisions or extend time limits beyond what is explicitly permitted by law.

The ruling came in the context of a Miscellaneous Application filed by an applicant seeking the issuance of a sale certificate from a bank. The application was found to be non-maintainable as it was filed in a previously disposed of Civil Appeal and also because it sought to extend time limits in contravention of explicit statutory rules.

Quoting from the judgment, the Court observed, "Article 142 of the Constitution of India – Limitations on the exercise of inherent powers – Inability to bypass statutory provisions or extend time limits beyond what is explicitly allowed." The Court went on to elaborate that its powers under Article 142, although broad, are not without bounds and cannot supplant the substantive law applicable to the case.

This observation is critical as it limits the future scope of Article 142, often invoked for doing "complete justice." However, as this judgment has clarified, even the Supreme Court's inherent powers can't extend to violating statutory limits or timelines.

In the ruling, the Court also deprecated the emerging trend of filing repeated Miscellaneous Applications after the final judgment has been pronounced. The Court noted that this practice has "no legal foundation and must be firmly discouraged," further stating that "such an application in the disposed of Civil Appeal No.1902 of 2020, to pursue its strategies and to avoid judicial adjudication in the substantive proceedings, would not be even maintainable in the eye of law."

Apex  Court clarified that the applicant was free to pursue other legal remedies, including the refund of the deposited amount from the bank, in accordance with the law.

This judgment is expected to serve as a significant precedent in limiting the scope of the Supreme Court's inherent powers under Article 142 and emphasizing the importance of respecting statutory limitations.

Date of Decision: 04 October 2023

UNION BANK OF INDIA vs  RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.

Latest Legal News