Page 53 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] CURATIVE JURISDICTION OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT A69

stitution, I am of the opinion that this Court retains and must retain,
an inherent power and jurisdiction for dealing with any extraordi-
nary situation in the larger interests of administration of justice and
for preventing manifest injustice being done. This power must nec-
essarily be sparingly used only in exceptional circumstances for fur-
thering the ends of justice.”
45. In Antulay’s case (supra), the majority in the seven-Judge Bench of this
Court set aside an earlier judgment of the Constitution Bench in a collateral
proceeding on the view that the order was contrary to the provisions of the
Act of 1952; in the background of that Act without precedent and in violation
of the principles of natural justice, which needed to be corrected ex debito
justitiae.
46. In Supreme Court Bar Association’s case (supra), on an application filed
under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought declaration
that the Disciplinary Committees of the Bar Councils set up under the Advo-
cates Act, 1961, alone had exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into and suspend
or debar an advocate from practising law for professional or other miscon-
duct and that the Supreme Court of India or any High Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction had no such jurisdiction, power or authority in that re-
gard. A Constitution Bench of this Court considered the correctness of the
judgment of this Court in Re : Vinay Chandra Mishra [(1995) 2 SCC 584]. The
question which fell for consideration of this Court was : whether the punish-
ment of debarring an advocate from practice and suspending his licence for a
specified period could be passed in exercise of power of this Court under Art.
129 read with Art. 142 of the Constitution of India. There an errant advocate
was found guilty of criminal contempt and was awarded the punishment of
simple imprisonment for a period of six weeks and was also suspended from
practice as an Advocate for a period of three years from the date of the judg-
ment of this Court for contempt of the High Court of Allahabad. As a result
of that punishment all elective and nominated offices/posts then held by him
in his capacity as an Advocate had to be vacated by him. Elucidating the
scope of the curative nature of power conferred on the Supreme Court under
Art. 142, it was observed :
“The plenary powers of the Supreme Court under Art. 142 of the
Constitution are inherent in the Court and are complementary to
those powers which are specifically conferred on the Court by vari-
ous statutes though are not limited by those statutes. These powers
also exist independent of the statutes with a view to do complete
justice between the parties. These powers are of very wide ampli-
tude and are in the nature of supplementary powers. This power
exists as a separate and independent basis of jurisdiction apart from
the statutes. It stands upon the foundation and the basis for its exer-
cise may be put on a different and perhaps even wider footing, to
prevent injustice in the process of litigation and to do complete jus-
tice between the parties. This plenary jurisdiction is, thus, the resid-
ual source of power which the Supreme Court may draw upon as
necessary whenever it is just and equitable to do so and in particu-
lar to ensure the observance of the due process of law, to do com-
plete justice between the parties, while administering justice accord-
ing to law. It is an indispensable adjunct to all other powers and is
free from the restraint of jurisdiction and operates as a valuable
weapon in the hands of the Supreme Court to prevent “clogging or
obstruction of the stream of justice.”
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  69