Introduction
The Indian legal system, deeply rooted in constitutional principles and procedural codes, provides High Courts with a unique set of powers to ensure justice and maintain the integrity of judicial proceedings. Among these powers, the inherent powers of the High Court serve as a powerful judicial tool that exists beyond codified statutes. These powers are especially critical in safeguarding the interests of justice when statutory remedies are either insufficient or inapplicable.
Legal Inception of Inherent Powers
The primary statutory recognition of the High Court’s inherent powers is found in Section 482 CrPC, which states:
“Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary,
(a) to give effect to any order under this Code, or
(b) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or
(c) otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
This provision does not confer new powers, it recognizes and preserves the inherent powers which the High Courts already possess by virtue of being superior courts.
Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India
In addition to CrPC, the High Courts derive writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. While these are distinct from “inherent” powers, they operate in tandem to uphold justice and check administrative and judicial excesses.
The inherent powers of the High Court are not governed by specific statutory limitations, but are exercised judicially and sparingly to ensure that justice is not defeated by mere procedural technicalities.
Key Objectives of Inherent Powers
- To Give Effect to Orders of the Court:
In cases where implementation of an order is obstructed by procedural gaps or resistance, the High Court can pass necessary directions. - To Prevent Abuse of Process:
Courts may quash criminal proceedings or investigations that are malicious, frivolous, or intended to harass the accused. - To Secure the Ends of Justice:
Where no express remedy exists under law, the High Court may intervene to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Situations Where Inherent Powers Are Invoked
- Quashing of FIR or Criminal Proceedings- The High Court often uses its powers to quash FIRs or criminal complaints where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offense or are evidently motivated by vendetta.
- Correction of Judicial Errors- In rare cases, where no statutory remedy is available, the High Court can use inherent powers to rectify gross errors in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.
- Intervention in Investigations- Where police investigation is being misused or abused to harass a party, the Court may intervene to stay, regulate, or quash the investigation.
- Compoundable and Non-Compoundable Offenses- In some cases, especially in matrimonial disputes or minor offenses, even if the offense is non-compoundable, the Court may quash proceedings if the parties have settled the matter, citing the interest of justice.
Judicial Interpretation of Section 482 CrPC
1. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)
This case laid down illustrative categories where High Courts may quash proceedings under Section 482, such as:
- Where the FIR does not disclose any offense.
- Where allegations are manifestly absurd.
- Where there is an express legal bar to institution of proceedings.
- Where a criminal proceeding is malicious or vexatious.
2. Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre (1988 AIR 709)
The Supreme Court held that where the allegations are predominantly civil in nature but cloaked as a criminal complaint, the High Court has the power to intervene.
3. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 10 SCC 303)
This case clarified that non-compoundable criminal matters involving private disputes can be quashed if the parties have resolved the dispute, and such quashing serves the ends of justice.
4. Bajan Lal Guidelines Reaffirmed
Reiterated in several cases, including Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) and State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani (2017).
Limitations and Cautions
Despite its wide scope, the exercise of inherent power is subject to judicial restraint and principled discretion.
1. Cannot Override Express Provisions
Inherent powers cannot be exercised in conflict with express statutory provisions. If a specific remedy is available under CrPC or any special law, it must be exhausted first.
2. Not a Substitute for Appeal or Revision
Section 482 is not intended to bypass the regular appellate or revision process. It is a residual power, not a primary recourse.
3. Cannot Be Invoked Routinely
Courts have consistently warned against the routine invocation of inherent powers. It must be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and in rarest of rare cases.
4. No Factual Disputes to Be Decided
Inherent powers are not meant for weighing evidence or determining disputed facts that remains the function of trial courts.
Distinction from Constitutional Powers
While Section 482 CrPC is limited to criminal matters, Articles 226 and 227 extend to civil, criminal, and administrative matters. A party can choose to invoke both, but courts generally insist on appropriate and non-overlapping remedies.
Criticism and Concerns
- Judicial Overreach Allegations:
In some cases, excessive use of inherent powers has been criticized as judicial overreach into the domain of legislature or executive. - Ambiguity and Discretion:
The open-ended nature of the phrase “ends of justice” can sometimes lead to inconsistent interpretations across jurisdictions. - Possibility of Misuse:
Petitioners may invoke Section 482 for delaying tactics or to stall investigations, thus misusing the relief intended for genuine cases.
Suggestions for Balanced Use
- Framing clear procedural guidelines for exercising Section 482 powers.
- Training judicial officers in balancing procedural fairness with judicial efficiency.
- Encouraging alternative dispute resolution in compoundable or private disputes before invoking court jurisdiction.
- Statutory amendments to define boundaries of inherent powers vis-à-vis modern criminal jurisprudence.
Conclusion
The inherent powers of the High Court, especially under Section 482 of the CrPC, act as a judicial safety valve to ensure justice in the face of procedural inadequacies or abuse of legal process. While powerful, these powers are not absolute they are meant to supplement and not supplant the criminal justice process.
Used judiciously, these powers reaffirm the principle that law is a means to secure justice, not a weapon for harassment. As Indian jurisprudence evolves, so must the responsibility of the judiciary in maintaining a balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint, especially in the context of inherent powers.
Contributed by : Urvashi Bansal (Intern)