“83. It is necessary to set at rest certain
misconceptions in the arguments touching the scope
of the powers of this Court under Article 142(1) of the
Constitution. These issues are matters of serious
public importance. The proposition that a provision in
any ordinary law irrespective of the importance of the
public policy on which it is founded, operates to limit
the powers of the apex Court under Article 142(1) is
unsound and erroneous. In both Garg as well
as Antulay cases the point was one of violation of
constitutional provisions and constitutional rights. The
observations as to the effect of inconsistency with
statutory provisions were really unnecessary in those
cases as the decisions in the ultimate analysis turned
on the breach of constitutional rights. We agree with
Shri Nariman that the power of the Court under Article
142 insofar as quashing of criminal proceedings are
concerned is not exhausted by Section 320 or 321 or
482 CrPC or all of them put together. The power under
Article 142 is at an entirely different level and of a
different quality. Prohibitions or limitations or
provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot, ipso
facto, act as prohibitions or limitations on the
constitutional powers under Article 142. Such
prohibitions or limitations in the statutes might embody
and reflect the scheme of a particular law, taking into
account the nature and status of the authority or the
court on which conferment of powers — limited in
some appropriate way — is contemplated. The
limitations may not necessarily reflect or be based on
any fundamental considerations of public policy. Sri
Sorabjee, learned Attorney General, referring to Garg
case, said that limitation on the powers under Article
142 arising from “inconsistency with express statutory
provisions of substantive law” must really mean and
be understood as some express prohibition contained
in any substantive statutory law. He suggested that if
the expression ‘prohibition’ is read in place of
‘provision’ that would perhaps convey the appropriate
idea. But we think that such prohibition should also be
shown to be based on some underlying fundamental
and general issues of public policy and not merely
incidental to a particular statutory scheme or pattern. It
will again be wholly incorrect to say that powers under
Article 142 are subject to such express statutory
prohibitions. That would convey the idea that statutory
provisions override a constitutional provision. Perhaps,
T.P. (C) No. 1118 of 2014 & Ors. Page 12 of 61