SC granted decree of divorce by mutual consent by waiving statutory period of waiting

Having regard to the background of the several
litigations between the parties over a period of five years,
background of the parties living separately for more than
five years, submission of Mr. Vivek Kumar Varinder Wadhera
that he has to go back to his work place in U.S.A and also
having regard to the submission of Aditi Vivek Kumar Wadhera

that she has now to think of her future, we are of the view
that it is a fit case to invoke our jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India and grant a decree
of divorce by mutual consent by waiving the statutory period
of waiting.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 3 & 4 OF 2016
IN
TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO.569 OF 2014
ADITI WADHERA 
 VERSUS
VIVEK KUMAR WADHERA 
Citation:2016 SCCONLINESC 785

Print Page

Supreme court Guidelines for protection of good samaritans in case of road accident

In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that guidelines
and directions can be issued by this Court including a command for
compliance of guidelines and standard operating procedure issued by
Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, till
such time as the legislature steps in to substitute them by proper
legislation. This Court can issue such directions under Article 32 read

with Article 142 to implement and enforce the guidelines which are
necessary for protection of rights under Article 21 read with Article 14
of the Constitution of India so as to provide immediate help to the
victims of the accident and at the same time to provide protection to
Good Samaritans. The guidelines will have the force of law under
Article 141. By virtue of Article 144, it is the duty of all authorities –
judicial and civil – in the territory of India to act in aid of this Court by
implementing them.
 We have carefully gone through the notification dated 12.5.2015.
However, as per the guidelines contained in para 13, the
‘acknowledgement’ if so desired by Good Samaritans, has to be issued
as may be prescribed in a standard format by the State Government. In
our opinion, till such time the format is prescribed, there should be no
vacuum hence we direct that acknowledgement be issued on official
letter-pad etc. and in the interregnum period, if so desired by Good
Samaritan, mentioning the name of Samaritan, address, time, date, place
of occurrence and confirming that the injured person was brought by the
said Samaritan.
 We have also gone through the notification dated 21.1.2016 with
respect to the examination of Good Samaritan by the Police as contained
in para 2(vii) which we modify and be read in the following manner :
“The affidavit of Good Samaritan if filed, shall be
treated as complete statement by the Police official
while conducting the investigation. In case statement
is to be recorded, complete statement shall be
recorded in a single examination.”
Remaining guidelines in the notifications dated 12.5.2015 and
21.1.2016 are approved and it is ordered that guidelines with aforesaid
modifications made by us be complied with by the Union Territories and
all the functionaries of the State Governments as law laid down by this
Court under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India
and the same be treated as binding as per the mandate of Article 141.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.235 OF 2012
Savelife Foundation & Anr. … Petitioners
Vs.
Union of India & Anr. … Respondents
Dated;March 30, 2016. 
Citation;AIR 2016 SC1617

Print Page

Whether relief granted by supreme court on special facts exercising power under Art. 142 amounts to precedent?

 One word before parting. Many a time, after declaring the law, this Court in the operative part of the judgment, gives some directions which may either relax the application of law or exempt the case on hand from the rigour of the law in view of the peculiar facts or in view of the uncertainty of law till then, to do complete justice. While doing so, normally it is not stated that such direction/order is in exercise of power under Article 142. It is not uncommon to find that courts have followed not the law declared, but the exemption/relaxation made while moulding the relief in exercise of power under Article 142. When the High Courts repeatedly follow a direction issued under Article 142, by treating it as the law declared by this Court, incongruously the exemption/relaxation granted under Article 142 becomes the law, though at variance with the law declared by this Court. The courts should therefore be careful to ascertain and follow the ratio decidendi, and not the relief given on the special facts, exercising power under Art. 142. One solution to avoid such a situation is for this Court to clarify that a particular direction or portion of the order is in exercise of power under Art. 142. Be that as it may.

Supreme Court of India

Indian Bank vs Abs Marine Products Pvt. Ltd on 18 April, 2006

Bench: Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, R. V. Raveendran

   Citation;(2006)5 SCC72

Print Page

Whether High court can grant relief which Supreme court grant as per Article 142 of constitution?

A decision is available as a precedent only if it decides a question of law. The respondents are, therefore, not entitled to rely upon an order of this Court which directs a temporary employee to be regularised in his service without assigning reasons. It has to be presumed that for special grounds which must have been available to the temporary employees in those cases, they were entitled to the relief granted. Merely because grounds are not mentioned in a judgment of this Court, it cannot be understood to have been passed without an adequate legal basis therefor. On the question of the requirement to assign reasons for an order, a distinction has to be kept in mind between a court whose judgment is not subject to further appeal and other courts. One of the main reasons for disclosing and discussing the grounds in support of a judgment is to enable a higher court to examine the same in case of a challenge. It is, of course, desirable to assign reasons for every order or judgment, but the requirement is not imperative in the case of this Court. It is, therefore, futile to suggest that if this Court has issued an order which apparently seems to be similar to the impugned order, the High Court can also do so. There is still another reason why the High Court cannot be equated with this Court. The Constitution has, by Article 142, empowered the Supreme Court to make such orders as may be necessary "for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it", which authority the High Court does not enjoy. The jurisdiction of the High Court, while dealing with a writ petition, is circumscribed by the limitations discussed and declared by the judicial decisions, and it cannot transgress the limits on the basis of whims or subjective sense of justice varying from Judge to Judge.

It is true that the High Court is entitled to exercise its judicial discretion in deciding writ petitions or civil revision applications but this discretion has to be confined in declining to entertain petitions and refusing to grant relief, asked for by petitioners, on adequate considerations; and it does not permit the High Court to grant relief on such a consideration alone.

Supreme Court of India

State Of Punjab And Others vs Surinder Kumar And Others on 20 December, 1991

Equivalent citations: AIR 1992 SC 1593, 1992 73 CompCas 490 SC, 1992 194 ITR 434 SC, JT 1991 (6) SC 540, 1991 (1) SCALE 1429, (1992) 1 SCC 489, 1991 Supp 3 SCR 553

Bench: L M Verma, S Agrawal

Print Page

Whether Supreme court should exercise power U/article 142 of constitution in contravention of statutory provision?

The power under Article 142 of the Constitution is a constitutional power and not restricted by statutory enactments. However, this Court would not pass any order under Article 142 which would amount to supplant the substantive law applicable or ignoring statutory provisions dealing with the subject. In other words, acting under Article 142, this Court cannot pass an order or grant relief which is totally inconsistent or goes against the substantive or statutory enactments pertaining to the case.

i) The powers under Article 142 are not meant to be exercised when their exercise may come directly in conflict with what has been expressly provided for in statute dealing expressly with the subject.

Supreme Court of India

A.B.Bhaskara Rao vs Inspector Of Police,Cbi ... on 23 September, 2011

Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan

Print Page