Declared: Article 142 of the Indian Structure – LexForti Authorized Journal

This article explains the concept of Article 142 of the Indian Constitution based on the case law. Dealing with the nuances of Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.

Text of Article 142 of the Indian Constitution

142. Enforcement of Supreme Court decrees and orders and unless relating to discovery, etc.

(1) The Supreme Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, may make such decree or order as may be necessary to fully satisfy any cause or matter pending on the territory of India in any manner made by or following any enacted by Parliament Is required by law, and until so provided in that name, in such manner as the President may, by order, dictate

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law passed by Parliament on that behalf, the Supreme Court has every authority in respect of the entire Indian territory to make an order to ensure the presence of any person making the discovery or submission of documents or the investigation or punishment of a disdain for oneself

Nature and scope of Article 142

In the Premchand Garg v Excise Commissioner case, the nature and extent of that power have been examined by the Supreme Court. It was found that the power, although broad, did not enable the Court to make an order that is clearly inconsistent with any constitutional provision.

In the Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India case, the Supreme Court ruled:

“The power below Article 142 is on a completely different level and of a different quality. The prohibitions or restrictions or provisions contained in ordinary laws ipso facto cannot be considered as prohibitions or restrictions under the constitutional powers Article 142. Such prohibitions or restrictions in the statutes could embody and reflect the scheme of a particular statute that takes into account the nature and status of the authority or court of justice for which the delegation of powers, appropriately limited, is contemplated. The restrictions need not necessarily reflect or be based on fundamental public policy considerations. .. .. .. .. .. It will again be completely wrong to say that the forces are below Article 142 are subject to such express legal prohibitions, which would convey the idea that legal provisions override a constitutional provision. “

Supreme Court in the case of Visakha v Rajasthan state Article 142 formed the law of the country in the absence of a material law covering the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace, and such instructions filled the vacuum until lawmakers passed material law. In a later decision in the State of Karnataka v. Andhra Pradesh State (2000) 9 SCC 572, the Supreme Court ruled that Article 142 When the Supreme Court has been given extensive powers to be perfectly fair between the parties and the Court, it can make any order or order that may be necessary.

In the Supreme Court Bar Association v Union of India case, the Supreme Court stated, “It is generally accepted and established that this court has always been a legislature.” This implies the legislative power of the Supreme Court.

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act sets out the reasons for obtaining a divorce verdict, but irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is not one of the reasons. In Romesh Chander vs. Savithri, the Supreme Court discussed the question of whether a marriage that is otherwise emotionally dead and practically for the sake of the name can be continued. The Supreme Court in the exercise of powers under Article 142 the Indian Constitution that the marriage between the complainant and the respondent should remain dissolved as the marriage was practically dead. This decision was followed in several decisions by the Supreme Court.

It is a firm law that the Supreme Court will only issue a divorce judgment in situations where the court is unequivocally convinced that the marriage has absolutely no chance of survival and that it will be irreparably broken.

It should be noted, however, that the power conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 142 the Indian Constitution is entrusted to the Supreme Court and the High Courts and Tribunals have no right to exercise that power.

In the AR Antulay v RS Nayak case, the Supreme Court ruled in relation to Article 142::

… As broad and plenary as the language of the article, the instructions of the Court should not conflict with, oppose, or contravene any specific provision of any law.

Requirements for Article 142

The powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 are very broadly based. This power in its exercise is circumscribed only by two conditions:

(1) that it can only be exercised if the Supreme Court otherwise exercises its jurisdiction, and

(2) That the order issued by the Supreme Court must be necessary to give full justice to the matter or matter before it. But power should not be exercised often, but sparingly.

Under Section 25 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) cannot investigate an identifiable crime committed in a state without the consent of the state government concerned. But the Supreme Court ruled that he can under Article 142 (1) instruct the CBI to investigate such a crime within a state without the consent of the state government concerned. The court found that the exercise of its powers is below Article 142 (1) is not tied to a legal authority, since legal provisions cannot override constitutional provisions. Article 142 (1) To be a constitutional authority cannot be restricted or conditioned by a statutory provision. The court has explained the scope of Article 142 in the following words:

Note

In UOI v M. Bhaskar, this article was interpreted to mean that the benefits of a judgment may even be extended “to all equals”, whether or not they are party to the proceedings. The principle of this article has been applied in cases where an unresponsive defendant was given the benefit of a verdict amending the conviction in an appeal brought by a similar defendant.

The power below Article 142 of the Indian Constitution is intended to complement the existing legal work in order to do justice to the parties and not to replace them. It is designed to address situations that cannot be effectively and adequately addressed with the existing legal provisions. It is advisable to leave this force undefined and not cataloged so that it remains elastic enough to adapt to the situation at hand.

FAQs

What does Article 142 say?

Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to issue any order necessary to achieve “complete justice” in any case. “The Supreme Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, may make such a decree or order as may be necessary to ensure full justice in any cause or matter pending before it

What is the difference between a review petition and a healing petition?

The main difference between the Check petition and healing petition is the fact that Review petition is provided by nature by doing Constitution of India during the creation of the Healing petition is related to the interpretation of the Review petition by the Supreme Court, which is anchored in Article 137.

Comments are closed.