Supreme Court's judgment in the Bilkis Bano case
The Supreme Court in the Bilkis Bano judgment on Monday held that personal liberty gained through the breach of law cannot be protected.
A Bench headed by Justice B.V. Nagarathna said that the rule of law was quintessential for personal liberty or any other fundamental right to exist and flourish.
Justice Nagarathna, who is in line to be the first woman Chief Justice of India following the seniority norm, said that “those concerned with the rule of law must remain unmindful and unruffled by the ripples caused by it”.
Rule of law does not mean protection to a fortunate few.
The very existence of the rule of law and the fear of being brought to book operates as a deterrent to those who have no scruples in killing others if it suits their ends.
The Bench was dealing with a plea by the convicts to invoke its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to let them remain free despite the cancellation of the order for their remission in August 2022.
Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be invoked by us in favour of respondents to allow them to remain out of jail as that would be an instance of
This court’s imprimatur to ignore rule of law and instead aid persons who are beneficiaries of orders, which in our view, are null and void and therefore non est in the eye of law,” Justice Nagarathna reasoned.
The judge said the “courts have to dispense justice and not justice being dispensed with”.
“In fact, the strength and authority of courts in India are because they are involved in dispensing justice.
The judge said there is no room for compassion or sympathy when the rule of law has to be enforced. The courts should be dispassionate, objective and analytical.
Article 142
Article 142 provides discretionary power to the Supreme Court as it states that the Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
In the early years of the evolution of Article 142, the general public and the lawyers both lauded the Supreme Court for its efforts to bring complete justice to various deprived sections of society or to protect the environment.
The Cleansing of Taj Mahal and justice to many undertrials is a result of the invocation of this article only.
In the Union Carbide case, relating to the victims of the Bhopal gas tragedy, the Supreme Court placed itself above the laws made by the Parliament or the legislatures of the States by saying that, to do complete justice, it could even override the laws made by Parliament.
However, in the Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, the Supreme Court stated that Article 142 could not be used to supplant the existing law, but only to supplement the law.
In recent years, there have been several judgments of the Supreme Court wherein it has been foraying into areas which had long been forbidden to the judiciary by reason of the doctrine of ‘separation of powers’, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
While the notification by the central government prohibited liquor stores along National Highways only, the Supreme Court put in place a ban on a distance of 500 metres by invoking Article 142.
COMMENTS