SC: Judiciary can do complete justice under Article 142

The Supreme Court has ruled that the higher judiciary can use its power to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution only in exceptional circumstances where the existing law fails to do complete justice.

A bench comprising Justices Aftab Alam and B S Chauhan refused to come to the aid of a highly qualified couple, whose matrimonial life was on the rocks within three months of marriage.

The court noted, ‘Therefore the law in this regard can be summarised to the effect that in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution, this court generally does not pass an order in contravention of or ignoring the statutory provisions nor the power is exercised merely on sympathy.’ Petitioner Manish Gel, a Chartered Accountant by profession and having degrees of CS and ICWA, got married to Dr Rohini Gel, an MD Radio Diagnosis on July 23, 2008 and started living separately from October 24.

The petition for divorce was filed in Gurgaon Court and during the pendency of the petition another petition for the same was filed before the Family Court, Delhi.

The couple was anxious to get separated immediately and was not even ready to wait for a cooling of period of six months granted by section 13-B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act to explore the possibility of reconciliation.

Justice Chauhan, while writing a 15-page judgement for the bench, noted, ‘This case reveals a very sorry state of affairs that the parties being highly qualified have blamed even to be higher and above the law and have vested right to use, misuse and abuse the process of the court.’ The apex court, relying on a judgement by the constitution bench of the Supreme Court, ruled, ‘Generally, no court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor the court can direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions.

‘The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions, which are contrary to what has been injected by law.

‘The court can use these powers only in exceptional cases to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens’.