Inherent Powers of
High Court under BNSS
Mr. Rishi Bhargava
Assistant Professor
Alliance School of Law
Section 528 BNSS
Definition:
528. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.—
Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect
the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders
as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this
Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Section 528 BNSS
Section 528 BNSS acknowledges the inherent powers of
the High Court.
• It is not an empowering section but a declaratory
provision.
• Purpose:
1. To ensure justice is served.
2. To prevent abuse of the judicial process.
3. To provide a mechanism to correct miscarriages of
justice.
Interpretation and Scope
• Saving Clause:
Section 528 BNSS starts with “Nothing in this Code shall be
deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High
Court…”
Emphasizes that these powers are not subject to the
procedural limitations of the BNSS
• Balance between Legislature and Judiciary:
High Court’s power to act when no specific provision in
BNSS applies.
Ensures a balance between the rigidities of law and the
necessities of justice.
Purposes of Inherent Powers
• Main Objectives:
To give effect to any order under BNSS
To prevent abuse of the judicial process.
To secure the ends of justice.
• Key Case:
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works vs. Md Sharaful Haque &
Anr:
High Court’s power to quash proceedings if it
amounts to abuse of process.
Why Inherent Powers are
Necessary
• Context:
Offenses impact both individual rights and societal
interests.
Provides a remedy in cases where no specific legal
provision exists.
• Judicial Supervision:
Continuous oversight of subordinate courts.
Ensures proper administration of justice and
adherence to legal principles.
Judicial Principles and Limitations
Key Cases:
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977):
• Guidelines for exercising inherent jurisdiction.
• Inherent powers should not be exercised if there is an express
provision in the CrPC
Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP (2007) case:
• - Doctrine of implied powers for Magistrates.
• - Inherent powers to be used to correct gross miscarriage of justice.
• Restrictions:
• - Cannot be used if a specific provision exists.
• - Must be used sparingly and in exceptional cases to prevent misuse.
Comparison with Section 151
C.P.C.
• Similarities:
Both sections preserve inherent judicial powers.
Emphasis on justice and preventing abuse of
process.
• Differences:
Section 528 BNSS applies only to High Courts.
Section 151 C.P.C. applies to all civil courts.
BNSS deals with criminal matters, while C.P.C. deals
with civil matters.
Practical Applications
• Quashing FIRs and Criminal Proceedings:
High Court’s power to quash in cases of legal
impropriety.
Important for preventing miscarriage of justice and
unnecessary harassment.
• Bail Considerations:
Nexus to Article 21 of the Constitution.
Role in safeguarding personal liberty.
High Court can grant bail to prevent undue
hardship.
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 AIR 604
1990 SCR Supl. (3) 259 1992 SCC Supl.
• The Supreme Court in this case outlined circumstances under
which an FIR can be quashed. The guidelines provided include:
- Lack of Prima Facie Case: If the allegations in the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offense or the case is absurd and
inherently improbable.
- Legal Bar: If the FIR is barred by any law, for example,
offenses committed outside the territorial jurisdiction.
- Malicious Intent: When the FIR is filed with malafide
intentions or as a result of personal vendetta.
• These guidelines are crucial in preventing the misuse of FIRs.
