#Article 142

The Bombay High Court consolidated 10 FIRs across six districts against a cooperative society director under the MPID Act, IPC and PCMC Act, directing a single trial at Nashik. The first FIR serves as the main case while subsequent FIRs are treated as Section 161 statements, curbing multiplicity of proceedings in economic offence cases.

The Supreme Court exercised its Article 142 powers to grant a mutual consent divorce, ordering the husband to pay ₹35 lakh alimony in two installments and to quash all existing criminal and civil cases between the parties. This ruling showcases the Court’s ability to deliver complete justice in matrimonial disputes while preventing further litigation.

The Supreme Court cancelled the bail of a foreign national accused of large-scale heroin trafficking after discovering the pledged sureties were non-existent, and directed all courts to implement a rigorous verification process for NDPS sureties. The order tightens bail safeguards in drug cases and obliges authorities to confirm surety authenticity, affecting future bail applications involving foreign nationals and narcotics offences.

The Supreme Court ruled that a tree falling on a stationary auto-rickshaw does not qualify as an accident arising from the 'use of a motor vehicle' under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but exercised its extraordinary power under Article 142 to award Rs. 25 lakh in compensation, setting a precedent for equitable relief in natural calamity cases where no statutory liability exists.

The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to protect the rights of candidates in select panels under the terminated Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) scheme, mandating their appointment within eight weeks provided they qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) within three years. This ruling balances equitable relief under Article 21A with regulatory compliance, setting a precedent for post-scheme employment disputes.

Supreme Court invokes Article 142 to mandate real-time surveillance, enforcement team equipping, and prosecution of illegal sand miners in the National Chambal Sanctuary, reinforcing constitutional duty to protect endangered species and habitats. States must comply within strict timelines or face contempt proceedings.

The Supreme Court quashed domestic violence proceedings filed after a ₹89 lakh mediated settlement, ruling that post-settlement litigation constitutes abuse of process. Invoking Article 142, the Court dissolved the marriage on grounds of irretrievable breakdown, even in the absence of statutory divorce grounds, setting a precedent for similar disputes.

The Uttarakhand High Court ruled that the Supreme Court’s 90-day limitation extension under Article 142, granted during the COVID-19 pandemic, applies to all quasi-judicial proceedings, including appeals under the Central Excise Act. This holding clarifies that litigants need not prove the original limitation expired during the pandemic to avail the extension, ensuring broader relief for delayed filings.

The Supreme Court ruled that systemic bias in Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) grading and unequal career opportunities rendered the denial of Permanent Commission (PC) to women officers unconstitutional under Article 14. The Court directed pension benefits for released officers, emphasizing that merit-based denials cannot stand where structural discrimination is proven.

Supreme Court directs appointment of former Chief Statistician as Technical Consultant for scientific analysis of survey data, mandating administrative support from Ministry of Education.