Vs.

Judges: K.RAMASWAMY, S.SAGHIR AHMAD & G.B.PATTANAIK, JJ.

Date of Judgment: Mar 21, 1997

Constitution of India, 1950
Article 142 – Necessity to exercise power to do complete justice or prevent injustice arising from exigencies of the cause or matter before it – Held question of lack of jurisdiction or nullity of the order of the Court does not arise – Held that power under Section 142 available only to Supreme Court, the directions given by Court are not violative of rights under Article 14, 16 (1) – Held Mandal’s decision of prospective postponing for five years is a law of the land under Article 141.

It would be seen that there is no limitation under Article 142(1) on the exercise of the power by this Court. The necessity to exercise the power is to do “complete justice in the cause or matter”. The inconsistency with statute law made by Parliament arises when this Court exercises power under Article 142(2) for the matters enumerated therein. Inconsistency in express statutory provisions of substantive law would mean and be understood as some express prohibition contained in any substantive statutory law. The power under Article 142 is constituent power transcendental to statutory prohibition. Before exercise of the power under Article 142(2), the Court would take that prohibition into consideration before taking steps under Article 142(2) and we find no limiting words to mould the relief or when this Court takes appropriate decision to met out justice or to remove injustice. The phrase “complete justice” engrafted in Article 142(1) is the word of width couched with elasticity to meet myriad situations created by human ingenuity or cause or result of operation of statute law or law declared under Article 32, 136 and 141 of the Constitution and cannot be cribbed or crabbed within any limitations or phraseology. Each case needs examination in the light of its backdrop and the indelible effect of the decision. In the ultimate analysis, it is for this Court to exercise its power to do complete justice or prevent injustice arising from the exigencies of the cause or matter before it. The question of lack of jurisdiction or nullity of the order of this Court does not arise. As held earlier, the power under Article 142 is a constituent power within the jurisdiction of this Court. So, the question of a law being void ab initio or nullity or voidable does not arise.

As held earlier, this being one of the tools of judicial craftsmanship adopted by exercising the power under Article 142, which is available only to this Court, the directions given are not violative of rights under Article 14 read with Article 16(1), not ultra vires the power nor void, nor incompatible to or inconsistent with the doctrine of equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution. On the other hand, the power was exercised by this Court under Article 142 read with Articles 32 and the direction postponing the operation of the decision for a period of five years is a law of the land under Article 141.

The U.P. Act saves the existing policy of reservation in promotions. The judgment in Mandal case saves the promotions already made. In Sabharwal’s case also a Constitution Bench has upheld the validity of the promotions given in excess of the roster; otherwise also those promoted on their own merit were held to be validly promoted. Even excess promotions remained undisturbed and the law became operative only from the date of the judgment. This Court upheld the previous promotions, though in excess of the roster system, as constitutional and valid. Therefore, we hold that the promotions of the respondents are legal and valid and they do not become void or unconstitutional as contended. (Para 60, 62 & 63)