Supreme Court has very wide powers under Article 142 for doing complete justice. Apart from the jurisdiction and powers conferred on Supreme Court under Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution, Supreme Court also has an inherent power and jurisdiction for dealing with any extraordinary situation in the larger interests of administration of justice and for preventing manifest injustice being done.
Supreme Court in Harbans Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [1982 (2) SCC 101], on an application under Article 32 of the Constitution filed after the dismissal of special leave petition and the review, reconsidered its judgment. In that case, among others, the petitioner and another person were convicted under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to death. In the case of one of the remaining two convicts, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. While staying the death sentence of the petitioner, A.N.Sen, J. in his concurring opinion, noticed the dismissal of the petitioner’s special leave, review petitions and the petition for clemency by the President and observed :
“Very wide powers have been conferred on Supreme Court for due and proper administration of justice. Apart from the jurisdiction and powers conferred on Supreme Court under Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution, I am of the opinion that Supreme Court retains and must retain, an inherent power and jurisdiction for dealing with any extraordinary situation in the larger interests of administration of justice and for preventing manifest injustice being done. This power must necessarily be sparingly used only in exceptional circumstances for furthering the ends of justice.”
In R.S.Nayak vs. A.R.Antulay (1984) 2 SCC 183 at 243, the majority in the seven-Judge Bench of Supreme 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.
In Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India & Anr. [1998 (4) SCC 409], on an application filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought declaration that the Disciplinary Committees of the Bar Councils set up under the Advocates Act, 1961, alone had exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into and suspend or debar an advocate from practising law for professional or other misconduct 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 regard.
A Constitution Bench of Supreme Court considered the correctness of the judgment of Supreme Court in Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra [(1995) 2 SCC 584]. The question which fell for consideration of Supreme Court was: whether the punishment of debarring an advocate from practice and suspending his licence for a specified period could be passed in exercise of power of Supreme Court under Article 129 read with Article 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 judgment of Supreme 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 Article 142, it was observed:
The plenary powers of the Supreme 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 statutes. 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 process of litigation and to do complete justice between the parties.
This plenary jurisdiction is, thus, the residual source of power which the Supreme 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 between the parties, while administering justice according 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”.”
Inspite of the width of power conferred by Article 142, the Constitution Bench took the view that suspending the advocate from practice and suspending his licence was not within the sweep of the power under the said Article and overruled the judgment in Re V.C.Mishra’s case (supra).
In M.S.Ahlwat vs. State of Haryana & Anr. [2000 (1) SCC 278], the petitioner, who was found guilty of forging signatures and making false statements at different stages before Supreme Court, was inflicted punishment under Section 193 IPC in Afzal vs. State of Haryana [1996 (7) SCC 397]. He filed an application under Article 32 of the Constitution assailing the validity of that order. Taking note of the complaint of miscarriage of justice by the Supreme Court in ordering his incarceration which ruined his career, acting without jurisdiction or without following the due procedure, it was observed that to perpetuate an error was no virtue but to correct it was a compulsion of judicial conscience.
The correctness of the judgment was examined and the error was rectified. In the cases discussed above Supreme Court reconsidered its earlier judgments, inter alia, under Articles 129 and 142 which confer very wide powers on Supreme Court to do complete justice between the parties. We have already indicated above that the scope of the power of Supreme Court under Article 129 as a court of record and also adverted to the extent of power under Article 142 of the Constitution.