Significance of examining facts under Article 142 of the Constitution of India

“Supreme Court judgments under article 142, not binding precedent, cannot be applied without examining facts” was stated by the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

The court in the case of Prabhu Kumar Rawat v. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd held that the judgment passed by the honorable Supreme Court on exercise powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be applied as a binding precedent without examining the facts.

Justice Anil Kshetarpal said the judgment could not be considered a binding precedent as it was passed under Article 142. The High Court also mentioned that equitable jurisdiction under Article 142 is not correct when the facts of a case show that relief claimed is mechanical adherence and inequitable to a judgment of the Supreme Court.

The petitioners challenged an order for excess payment. The reason being an interim order was passed by the High Court earlier of NHPC dating April, 2020 for recovery of money by the Respondent from the Petitioners. The Petitioners, mentioned the judgment passed in Rafiq Masih i.e., after a gradual passage of time and some of the Petitioners have already retired, no recovery can be made from the employees.

The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta said that the amount to be recovered seemed less significant in comparison to the amount paid by the corporation, thereby making the relief sought by the Petitioners inequitable on behalf of Respondents. The arguments of the Petitioner were not accepted by the High Court. The facts of the present case were not applied as the amount was sought to be recovered in accordance with an interim order passed by the Court.

Featured Image- Bar and Bench.