Inherent Powers of the Court

Court is regarded as the temple of Justice. The fundamental aim behind establishing the court in our society is to advance justice between the parties. It is the duty of the court to serve justice in every case. To serve this reverent duty, Court is equipped with various powers under the code. One such power is ‘inherent powers’. ‘Inherent’ conveys the meaning of absolute, inseparable, or essential.

Such inherent powers are complementary to the powers already given to the court. The purpose of granting such inherent power is to secure the ends of justice and to ensure that no wrong in the legal process remains unaddressed. Section148 to 153B of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) confers inherent powers on courts and High Courts respectively. The purpose of this article is to understand the scope and limitations of the inherent powers of courts described under such provisions.

INTRODUCTION

The Court of law holds a very high position in society. Because of its duty to advance justice in the society. Court is constitute to administer justice between the parties. By virtue of this special characteristic, they are possess with all such powers; which are consider as necessary to do the right. Undo the wrong for the purpose of doing justice between the parties.[1] In order to advance justice, courts are given discretionary powers. Under the various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). And Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC.). These discretionary powers prescribe in the court are called ‘Inherent Powers of the court’.

These inherent powers of the court are in addition to the powers specified in the code. Thus the inherent powers of the court are complementary to the existing power[2] given under the CPC and CrPC. Inherent powers have roots in necessity so that, justice can be done even in the absence of express provision.  Section 148 – 153A are the provisions of CPC dealing with the inherent powers of the court. Which are to be exercise in the absence of expression provision provide under the code and different circumstances. Section 482 of CrPC. also provides for the inherent powers of the High courts for meeting the ends of justice.

The provisions relate to inherent powers of the court are the adjective or procedural laws and the provisions. Thereof must be liberally interprete and apply to advance justice in society.[3] The intention of the legislature behind providing the inherent powers of the court was to focus on doing justice. Rather than emphasizing too much on the procedural part of the parties. The main aim of this article is to find out and study relevant sections. They are dealing with the inherent powers of the court. It is to analyze how these inherent powers are exercise by the court. And to understand the scope and limitations of the court while exercising inherent powers.

PROVISIONS OF CPC DEALING WITH THE INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT

Section 148 (Enlargement of Time): Section 148 states that where any term/period is fixed or award under CPC. Then the court acting in its discretion may enlarge the term//time period award under the code. Even though the originally the fixed period has been expire.[4] However the court cannot extend the original time period beyond thirty days in total. The court can act on its discretion and enlarge the time in the absence of any specific provision. It is provide under the code.

Section 149 (Payment of Court Fees): According to section 149, if any fee prescribe for any legal document has not been paid. Either in whole or any part. Then the court acting in its discretionary power may allow such person by whom the fees are payable. Basically to pay the whole or any part of the court fee. As the case may be at any stage of the proceedings. And the status of the document in respect to which such fee is payable. It shall remain the same as if such fee has been pay in the first instance. [5]

Section 149 gave the power to the court to allow a party to make up for the lack of court fees. Due on any legal document like complaint or notice of appeal etc. Even if the time period prescribe for such payment of fee has been expired. In many instances, parties are not able to pay court fees. Due to various valid possible reasons, and thus due to such default, their suit may be dismissed. But merely due to some deviation from procedural requirements. Justice cannot be obstruct thus the court is given inherent power to make up for such fault. Mostly keeping into consideration the importance of justice.

In Bahadur Pradhani[6], a money suit was rejected for non-payment of court fee within the specified time frame given by the court. The plaintiff filed the application for restoration of the suit and thus justice can be done. The court accepted the application and provided another opportunity for the plaintiff to submit a court fee.

Section 150( Transfer of Business):  As per section 150, if the business of any court is transfer to any other court. The court to which the business is transfer shall have the same powers and duties. Similar to that court from where the business was transfer.[7]  In Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sochindra Mohan Das Gupta,[8] a surety bond was executed before the district judge, Agartala but later the district judge transfer the case to the court of Subordinate Judge, Agartala.

It was contended by the appellant that the subordinate judge was incompetent to execute the bond. Supreme Court dismissing the contention of the appellant. Held that as per section 150 of CPC. The judge to whom the case is transfer takes all the powers from the court. They transfer the case and thus subordinate judge in the present case. It takes the power of district judge and hence he is competent to execute the bond. 

Section 151 (Inherent Powers of the court): As per section 151, nothing in CPC shall limit or restrict the inherent powers of the court to make such orders. That are consider as necessary for meeting the ends of justice. Or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court.[9] The key expressions under section 151 are ‘ends of justice’ and ‘abuse of the process of court’. These key expressions are guiding factors that the court should keep in mind. While passing any such orders under this section i.e. The court must have pass the order for the meeting the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court.

Ends of Justice: This expression was very well explained in the case of Debendranath v. Satya Bala Das[10]. It was held that section 151 is base upon the doctrine. Every court has the inherent power to act ex debito jutitia (an obligation of doing justice). End of justice is not a mere polite expression in juristic methodology. Rather, it is a solemn expression conveying the meaning that justice is the pursuit and end of all laws.  This concept is very broad but it is not vague or indeterminate.

Here Justice means justice according to statutes and laws of the land. Therefore, justice here does not mean that provisions of the law and statutes can be overridden. Mostly by the private or arbitrary emotions of the court. This expression provides for a second opportunity where a suit is dismiss solely base on lack of compliance of procedural requirements. And the parties have not given a chance to have their case being heard. Thus where the parties defaulted at one of the procedural requirements. They fail to comply with the procedure, then the court acting for the interest of justice can give another opportunity to the party at default. So that case can be decide on merits and justice can be done.

Abuse of process of court: Section 151 empowers the court to check for the infringement of the process of the court.  The word ‘abuse’ is said to happen when a court uses a method to do something. That it is never legally require to do leading to the unfairness to the party against whom such process is launched. It usually happens when one of the parties to the suit plays fraud on the court. Thereby prompting the court to initiate proceedings on the party to the suit. The injustice suffer by the party on the hands of the court which under the false impression launch legal proceedings. It deserves to get relief base on a doctrine called actus curiae neminem gravabit. That is an act that the court should not prejudice anyone.

Section 152 and section 153 (Amendment of judgments, decrees, orders, or error in the proceeding): Section 152 and 153 allows the court to rectify clerical or arithmetical mistakes or omissions in the order, decrees or judgments made accidentally. Similarly section 153 permits the court to amend any defect or error in any suit proceeding. It is to determine the real issues arising in the proceedings.[11] Section 152 and 153 makes it clear that the court may correct any blunders arising in proceedings. Also suits, order, decree, or judgment. These provisions are base on the two principles:

a) duty of the court to maintain the correct records and they represent the correct state of affairs

b) court should not become the source of prejudice to any party.

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT

Supreme Court in K.K. Velusamy [12] case discussed the scope and limitations of section 151 of CPC. They are as follows:

1. Inherent powers of the court are not substantive provisions which confer unlimited powers or jurisdiction on courts. They are merely discretionary powers that every court possesses to render justice. It is in accordance with the law and do all the things which are necessary to secure justice and stop the abuse of its process.
2. Court cannot use inherent powers to it over the substantive rights of the litigant. In M/s Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Case,[13] it was held that powers under section 151 of CPC can be exercised in the absence of express provision; however the same can be exercise only with respect to the procedural rights of the litigant. And not over the substantive rights.
3. The provisions of the code are not exhaustive as the legislature couldn’t contemplate all possible circumstances. It may arise in future litigation therefore legislature vest inherent powers on the court to deal with those procedural aspects which the code is unable to cover.
4. Court has no power to use its inherent power when there already exists a specific provision or remedy under the code. Thus it cannot exercise its power in contradiction to the provisions of CPC. Inherent powers of the court can be exercise only if the justice cannot be grant by any other remedy. When justice can be serve by another remedy under CPC, then the court cannot exercise this jurisdiction.
5. Inherent powers are complementary to the powers expressly conferr by the code and these powers are to be exercise in compliance with the other provisions of the code. These powers should not be inconsistent with the existing provisions of CPC. This also ensures that the court is using its process to abuse one of the litigating parties. The court will exercise inherent powers only when the CPC is silent and does not have any specific provision dealing with the issue.  If there is already a specific provision available in CPC, then this power cannot be exercise and override the provisions of CPC. The power can be use to support the provisions of the code and not to evade it.
6. If no legislative guidelines are given to exercise such inherent powers. Thus the court is expect to use its wisdom and give careful consideration to the facts of each case while exercising its inherent powers.

SECTION 482 OF CrPC

Section 482 of CrPC. states that the High Courts have inherent powers to make such orders which are necessary to give effect to any other order under the code or to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.[14] Such powers are to be exercised under 3 circumstances namely-

a) to give effect to an order passed under CrPC.

b) to prevent the abuse of the process of the court

c) to secure the ends of justice.[15]

This section is a reminder that the High Courts of India are not mere the courts of law but also the court of justice and possess the inherent powers to remove injustice.

AMBIT OF INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 482

Inherent powers of High Courts include the power to quash FIR, any investigation, inquiry, or any other criminal proceedings pending before such High Court or any other subordinate court coming under its jurisdiction. It is well-settled law that the High Court can exercise such inherent powers only when no other remedy is provid under the code.

WHEN HIGH COURT CAN INTERFERE AND QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OR FIR

In normal circumstances, High Courts are not allow to interfere in the criminal proceedings going on in the sub-ordinate court. However a High Court is oblige to interfere when those criminal proceedings instead of doing justice become the source of harassment. In such circumstances, interference becomes an absolute necessity in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. In State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal[16], Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of section 482 in detail and came up with certain guidelines to be followed by High Courts while exercising their inherent powers under section 482 to quash criminal proceedings or FIR:

1. If the allegations made in the FIR or criminal complaint does not constitute any offense or make a case against the accused, High Court in such a scenario may quash the criminal proceedings.
2. If the allegations in FIR do not disclose any cognizable offense and thus justifying an investigation by the police officer under section 156(1) of CrPC. then the High Court can exercise its inherent power and pass an appropriate order.
3. Allegations made in the FIR and evidence collected does not corroborate with the allegations made in the FIR and thus does not make any case against the accused, thus High Court can quash the criminal proceedings and prevent the accused from such abuse of the process of the court.
4. If the FIR is related to the commission of cognizable offense but in reality it constitutes a non-cognizable offense, thus High Court can stop the investigation by the police officer in such a case.
5. If the allegations made are so absurd and are inherently so absurd and it appears that such a criminal process was launch to harass the accuse, then High Court can stop such abuse of the process of the court.
6. Where the criminal proceedings are maliciously institute or with the ulterior motive of taking vengeance from the accused then High Court can quash such criminal proceedings
7. If there is any express legal bar engraft in any provisions of CrPC. or the concern act then the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings

In Parbatbhi Ahir v. State of Gujrat,[17] the Supreme Court made an important observation in regards to the compounding of offense and section 482. Apex Court in this regard ruled that the High Court can compound the offense while exercising its inherent power after considering the nature and gravity of the offense. If the offense is heinous involving mental depravity such as murder or rape then such an offense cannot be compoundable even if the parties agree to settle it, as such offenses are not private and have serious implications upon the society.

However criminal cases arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile or similar transactions stand on a distant footing and which often involves civil flavor and does not involve serious implications on society, then such criminal proceedings of such offenses can be quash by the High Court, provide that the parties have agree to settle/compound it.

LIMITATIONS OF HIGH COURT ON SECTION 482 OF CrPC

Even though the High Court has vested with wide inherent powers but such powers are to be exercised with care and caution. In R.P. Kapoor,[18] the Supreme Court made it clear that such powers cannot be exercised in matters which are explicitly covered under specific provisions of CrPC.  If an alternative remedy is available then the High Court cannot use its inherent powers. 

Further High Court has no inherent power under section 482 to review its judgment or final order except to amend clerical or arithmetical errors.[19] High Court cannot enter into any findings of facts if the case has been successfully conclude by the subordinate court below. [20] The whole exercise of using inherent powers by the High Courts must not be arbitrary but rather it must be based upon the wisdom of the High Court and facts of each case along with keeping into consideration ends of justice and prevent of abuse of process of the court.

CONCLUSION

Since it was never possible for the legislature to contemplate all the procedures and every possible situation which may arise in the future or creating an exhaustive list of circumstances to which the existing provisions may apply. Thus the court is vest with the inherent powers to meet the ends of justice where legislative provisions of the law are explicitly available or applicable. Such inherent powers are vest on the court because of its virtue to do justice in the society.

Since every court is constitute for the purpose of administering justice and therefore must possess all the powers to do the right and undo the wrong. Code of Civil Procedure and Cr.PC. acknowledge such a virtuous duty of the court and thus have vest in the court such inherent powers that are to be exercise for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. 

Section 148 to Section 153B of CPC provides for the inherent powers of the court. These provisions largely talk about enlargement of time, payment of court fees, transfer of a case from one court to another, meeting the ends of justice, preventing the abuse of the process of the court, amendments in orders, judgments, decrees and records.  Section 482 of Cr.PC vests inherent powers into the High Courts to pass orders which are necessary for the enforcement of the other provisions of the code or to secure justice or to prevent abuse of process of court. These provisions allow the court to use its discretion and wisdom and allow the litigating parties another opportunity to present their case in a court of law.

However, the Court cannot irrationally exercise such inherent powers. Supreme Court has provide various caveats that are to be keep in mind while exercising inherent powers.  Such powers can be used only in the absence of a particular provision or when the code is silent on any procedural aspect. While exercising such powers, the court must be careful that the substantive rights of the litigating parties are not affect. Also the court must abide by the principle of Res Judicata i.e. not to open the case again which is already been decide. This whole exercise must be guided by the two broad parameters i.e. a) Ends of Justice b) Prevent the abuse of process of the court. Thus such inherent powers ensure that the judicial process is uniform and unbiased and leads to justice in the end.

---

References:

[1] State of UP Vs. Roshan Singh AIR 2008 SC P.1190

[2] Mulraj Vs. Murti Raghunath Ji Maharaj AIR 1967 SC P.1386

[3] Shreenath Vs. Rajesh AIR 1998 SC P.1192

[4] Section 148, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

[5] Section 149, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

[6] Bahadur Pradhani v Gopal Patel AIR 1964 Ori 134

[7] Section 150, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

[8] 1975 AIR 2051

[9] Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

[10] AIR 1950 Cal 217

[11] Section 152-3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

[12] K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palaanisamy (2011) 11 SCC 275

[13] M/s Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate v. The Commissioner of Income Tax AIR 1977 SC 1348

[14] Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

[15] State of Karnataka v. Muniswami AIR 1977 SC 1489

[16] (1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335)

[17] (2013) 9 SCC 293

[18] R P Kapur v. State of Punjab 1960 AIR 862

[19] Patel Narshi Thakershi & Ors. V. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji (1971) 3 SCC 844

[20] Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 15 SCC 284