'Article 142 Doesn't Empower Court To Ignore Substantive Rights Of Litigants' : Supreme Court Issues Guidelines On Exercise Of Inherent Powers

While overturning the 2018 Asian Resurfacing judgment that mandated an automatic vacation of stay orders after six months, the Supreme Court issued crucial guidelines on the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. This latest verdict was issued yesterday by a constitution bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Abhay S Oka, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra.What is Article 142 of the Constitution?Article 142 of the Constitution confers wide-ranging powers on the highest court of the land to pass orders and decrees necessary to ensure 'complete justice' in any case before it. These orders are enforceable throughout India and can include directives for the attendance of individuals, discovery of documents, or investigation of contempt of court.Essentially, it allows the Supreme Court to take a wide gamut of action needed to ensure justice is served in the case at hand. This includes dissolving a marriage on grounds of its 'irretrievable breakdown' without one of the spouse's consent even in the absence of any express statutory provision, or declaring a candidate as validly elected instead of quashing the election process on finding that the presiding officer deliberately invalidated certain votes paving the way for another candidate to be declared as the winner.What do the latest guidelines on Article 142 say?In yesterday's verdict, the Supreme Court, however, clarified that while this constitutional provision is designed to allow it to do complete justice, “it cannot be exercised to nullify the benefits derived by a large number of litigants based on judicial orders validly passed in their favour who are not parties to the proceedings before the court.”Other than this, these non-exhaustive guidelines emphasise that Article 142 can be invoked by the Supreme Court to streamline procedural aspects, but not to to defeat the substantive rights of litigants not party to a case before it. Such substantive rights include the right of a litigant to be heard before an adverse order is passed against them.Importantly, the constitution bench also held that the Supreme Court's powers under Article 142 cannot be exercised to defeat the principles of natural justice, which are an integral part of our jurisprudence.Important parameters for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution(i) The jurisdiction can be exercised to do complete justice between the parties before the Court. It cannot be exercised to nullify the benefits derived by a large number of litigants based on judicial orders validly passed in their favour who are not parties to the proceedings before this Court;(ii) Article 142 does not empower this Court to ignore the substantive rights of the litigants; and (iii) While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court can always issue procedural directions to the Courts for streamlining procedural aspects and ironing out the creases in the procedural laws to ensure expeditious and timely disposal of cases. This is because, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 142, this Court may not be bound by procedural requirements of law. However, while doing so, this Court cannot affect the substantive rights of those litigants who are not parties to the case before it. The right to be heard before an adverse order is passed is not a matter of procedure but a substantive right. (iv) The power of this Court under Article 142 cannot be exercised to defeat the principles of natural justice, which are an integral part of our jurisprudence.BackgroundThe 2018 Asian Resurfacing ruling, which came under the Supreme Court's scrutiny, directed stay orders to be automatically vacated without requiring courts to provide reasons or consider the circumstances of each case. The ruling stipulated that trial courts could resume proceedings after six months from the issuance of stay orders by higher courts. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in August 2019 clarified that the six months' cap on interim stay orders will not be applied to Supreme Court orders.The original judgment, delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices AK Goel, Navin Sinha, and Rohinton Nariman, mandated automatic stay vacation after six months unless in any exceptional case, such stay is extended by a speaking order.The 'automatic stay vacation' rule has now been set aside by the Supreme Court, which has noted its potential adverse impact on litigants. While doing so, the court instead issued guidelines regarding the procedure to be followed by high courts in passing interim orders of stay of proceedings and dealing with applications for vacating such stays. These guidelines recommend limited period interim stay orders and priority to be given to applications for vacating such stay.In its judgment, the constitution bench also held that constitutional and ordinary courts and should refrain from setting time-bound schedules for cases...

'Article 142 Doesn't Empower Court To Ignore Substantive Rights Of Litigants' : Supreme Court Issues Guidelines On Exercise Of Inherent Powers

Awstika Das

Tags