Page 41 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] DOING COMPLETE JUSTICE IN ANY CAUSE OR MATTER UNDER ARTICLE 142 A133

separate and independent basis of jurisdiction apart from the statutes. The
Court further observed that though the powers conferred on the Court by Ar-
ticle 142 are curative in nature, they cannot be construed as powers which au-
thorise the Court to ignore the substantive rights of a litigant. The Court fur-
ther observed that this power cannot be used to “supplant” substantive law
applicable to the case or cause under consideration of the Court. Article 142
even with the width of its amplitude, cannot be used to build a new edifice
where none existed earlier, by ignoring express statutory provisions dealing
with a subject and thereby achieve something indirectly which cannot be
achieved directly.
21. Similarly, in M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 168 : (2000) 1
SCC 278 : (1999 AIR SCW 4255 : 2000 Cri LJ 388) it was held that under Article
142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court cannot altogether ignore the sub-
stantive provisions of a statute and pass orders concerning an issue which
can be settled only through a mechanism prescribed in another statute.”
[M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others - AIR 2000 SC 1997]
Curative Petition v. Jurisdiction under Art. 142 :
Here, it is noteworthy that although powers conferred on the Court by
Article 142 has been held as curative in nature, yet curative jurisdiction in view
of decision in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Another, (AIR 2002 SC 1771)
read with ORDER XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, discussed separately
in these columns, is only a part of the wide supplementary power under Article
142.
Corrective power and its use :
In respect of corrective nature of this power and instances of its use, it
has been observed in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Another
case :
“40. …. The power to do complete justice under Article 142 is in a way, cor-
rective power, which gives preference to equity over law but it cannot be
used to deprive a professional lawyer of the due process contained in the
Advocates Act, 1961 by suspending his licence to practice in a summary
manner, while dealing with a case of contempt of Court.
44. The plenary powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution
are inherent in the Court and are complementary to those powers which are
specifically conferred on the Court by various 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 amplitude and are in the nature of supplementary powers. This power,
exists as a separate and independent basis of jurisdiction, apart from the stat-
utes. It stands upon the foundation, and the basis for its exercise may be put
on a different and perhaps even wider footing, to prevent injustice in the pro-
cess of litigation and to do complete justice between the parties. This plenary
jurisdiction is, thus, the residual source of power which this Court may draw
upon as necessary whenever it is just and equitable to do so and in particular
to ensure the observance of the due process of law, to do complete justice be-
tween the parties, while administering justice according to law. There is no
doubt that 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 Court to prevent “clogging or obstruction of the stream of justice”. It,
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  41