##PAGE1## ##PAGE2## ##PAGE3## ##PAGE4##

[2025:RJ-JP:51572] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-8301/2025]

prohibitions in law. In fact, the Court is obligated to

take note of the relevant laws and will have to

regulate the use of its power and discretion

accordingly. The Constitution Bench decision in the

case of Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India &

Anr. has eloquently clarified this point as follows:

“48. The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction

under Article 142 has the power to make such order

as is necessary for doing complete justice “between

the parties in any cause or matter pending before

it”. The very nature of the power must lead the

Court to set limits for itself within which to exercise

those powers and 6 (1998) 4 SCC 409, 48 ordinarily

it cannot disregard a statutory provision governing a

subject, except perhaps to balance the equities

between the conflicting claims of the litigating

parties by “ironing out the creases” in a cause or

matter before it. Indeed this Court is not a court of

restricted jurisdiction of only disputesettling. It is

well recognised and established that this Court has

always been a law maker and its role travels beyond

merely disputesettling. It is a “problem solver in the

nebulous areas” (see K. Veeraswami v. Union of

India [(1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734] but

the substantive statutory provisions dealing with the

subjectmatter of a given case cannot be altogether

ignored by this Court, while making an order under

Article 142. Indeed, these constitutional powers

cannot, in any way, be controlled by any statutory

provisions but at the same time these powers are

not meant to be exercised when their exercise may

come directly in conflict with what has been

expressly provided for in a statute dealing expressly

with the subject.”

(Uploaded on 13/01/2026 at 05:12:25 PM)

(Downloaded on 18/01/2026 at 04:42:36 AM)