Inherent Powers Of High Court
Inherent powers are the powers possessed by High Courts to make orders or give directions in order to prevent abuse of the process of court, to secure the ends of justice, or to provide relief in situations where no specific procedural law or statute applies.
These powers are not expressly conferred by any statute but are implied by the very nature of the judicial function. They are exercised sparingly and cautiously to ensure justice is served.
Key Features of Inherent Powers:
Prevent Abuse of Process: To stop misuse of judicial procedures.
Fill Gaps in Law: When there is no specific statutory remedy.
Ensure Fair Trial: To secure ends of justice.
Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Exercised in exceptional cases.
Not to Contradict Statutory Law: Cannot override express provisions of procedural laws.
Statutory Basis in India:
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Confers inherent powers on Civil Courts (including High Courts) to make any order necessary to prevent abuse of process or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Grants High Courts the power to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose, which is a constitutional inherent power.
The Supreme Court has also recognized the inherent powers of High Courts under Article 227 (supervisory jurisdiction).
Important Case Laws on Inherent Powers of High Courts
1. State of U.P. vs. Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. (1988) 4 SCC 59
Facts: The Supreme Court discussed the scope of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC.
Judgment: The Court emphasized that inherent powers must be exercised to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice, but such powers should not be used to override express provisions of the law.
Significance: The inherent powers are exceptional and are not to be used in routine matters where statutory remedies are available.
2. M.C. Chockalingam vs. M.C. Mariappan (1968 AIR 1165)
Facts: The petitioner sought to challenge an order passed by a trial court where no specific statutory remedy was available.
Judgment: The Madras High Court held that inherent powers of the court can be exercised to meet the ends of justice, especially when there is a lacuna in the law.
Significance: This case reaffirmed the concept that inherent powers are a judicial safety valve to ensure justice when the law is silent or inadequate.
3. R.K. Garg vs. Union of India (1981) 4 SCC 675
Facts: The issue involved the use of inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings which were alleged to be frivolous.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that inherent powers could be used to prevent abuse of process and to protect a person from oppression through unwarranted proceedings.
Significance: The judgment clarified that inherent powers could be used to quash proceedings to avoid misuse of the judicial process.
4. State of Bihar vs. Kameshwar Singh (1952 SCR 889)
Facts: The Court dealt with the scope of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to ensure fair trial and prevent injustice.
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld that High Courts have inherent powers to interfere with proceedings to ensure justice and prevent miscarriage.
Significance: It reinforced the supervisory role of High Courts under their inherent powers to oversee the administration of justice.
5. Haradhan Roy vs. Union of India (1970 AIR 1322)
Facts: The accused was subject to a criminal proceeding that was alleged to be oppressive and an abuse of process.
Judgment: The Supreme Court observed that inherent powers should be exercised where there is patent abuse of process and injustice is apparent.
Significance: The Court stressed that the power is a safeguard against misuse but should be used cautiously and not as a substitute for regular remedies.
6. Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (1964 AIR 915)
Facts: The High Court invoked its inherent powers to issue a writ preventing harassment due to an abuse of police process.
Judgment: The Supreme Court supported the exercise of inherent powers to protect citizens from illegal or oppressive state action.
Significance: This case highlighted the protective role of inherent powers in upholding citizens' rights.
Summary:
Inherent powers are extraordinary powers of the High Courts.
Exercised to prevent abuse of process, ensure justice, and fill gaps where no statutory remedy exists.
Cannot be used to contradict express statutory provisions.
Used sparingly and only when necessary.
Supported by Section 151 CPC, Article 226, and Article 227 of the Constitution.
Case laws have consistently emphasized that such powers should prevent injustice but not become tools for regular appeals or revision.
RELATED Blog
0 comments