Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

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