Inherent Power of the courts

Inherent powers are those powers which are not subject to being taken away from courts and
may be used by a court to do complete and satisfied justice between the parties before it.
The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023) is a recent law that reforms and
modernizes criminal procedure in India. One of its key features is the provision regarding the
inherent powers of the High Courts, especially with regard to Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (CrPC), which is applicable in a variety of scenarios.
Under Section 482 of the CrPC & 582 of BNSS, 2023, the High Court is granted the inherent
power to make any orders necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to secure
the ends of justice. The inherent power of High Court can be exercised:
 To give effect to an order under the Code; or
 To prevent abuse of the process of Court; or
 To secure the ends of justice.
The section provides the specific provisions where the inherent powers can be exercised. No
such power can be exercised other than those which are specifically provided. Also, these powers
cannot be invoked where any specific provision for a particular case is made. The section in its
very sense talks to save the powers, however, on the other hand, it limits the power by
prescribing the specific provisions where these powers can be exercised. The inherent powers
exist and in its wide scope, it is a rule of practice that will only be exercised in exceptional cases.
1. Inherent Powers: Not Conferred, but Saved
 Section 528 of BNSS functions as a "saving clause" rather than a power-granting
provision.
 It acknowledges the inherent powers already possessed by the High Court, not that it
grants new powers.
 These powers stem from the High Court's position as the highest court in the state,
enabling it to prevent injustice and fill gaps where the Code is silent.
2. Purposes for Exercising Inherent Powers
 Section 528 outlines three key purposes for exercising inherent powers:
o To make orders necessary to give effect to orders made under the BNSS.
o To prevent the abuse of the process of any court.
o To secure the ends of justice.
3. Scope of Inherent Powers
 The inherent powers can be exercised in situations where the BNSS is silent or when the
Code's provisions don't fully address a specific case.
  They can be used to bridge gaps in the Code and ensure that justice is served in all
circumstances.
4. Historical Context
 Similar inherent powers were previously granted to High Courts under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
 Section 528 of BNSS serves as a continuation of this tradition, ensuring that High Courts
can continue to exercise their inherent jurisdiction to ensure justice.
5. Examples of Inherent Power:
 Enlarging time limits:
Courts can extend deadlines for filing appeals, responding to pleadings, etc., even if the original
deadline has passed.
 Correcting errors:
Courts can rectify clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, orders, or decrees.
 Amending proceedings:
Courts can make amendments to the proceedings in a suit to ensure that the real issues between
the parties are properly addressed.
 Transferring cases:
Courts can transfer cases to another court if necessary to ensure convenience, fairness, or to
prevent delays.
 Quashing FIRs or proceedings:
High Courts may quash First Information Reports (FIRs) or criminal proceedings if the
continuation of the trial would be an abuse of the process or would not meet the ends of justice.
6. Limitations on Inherent Powers:
 Inherent powers must be exercised only for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the
process, not to circumvent or contradict existing laws.
 They cannot be used to override specific provisions in the law or procedural rules.
Application of inherent power of the Court: The word ‘inherent’ means existing and
inseparable from something, a permanent attribute or quality, an essential element, something
intrinsic or essential, vested in or attached to a person or office as a right or privilege. Hence,
inherent powers are such powers which are inalienable from courts and may be exercised by a
court to do full and complete justice between the parties.
The Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, has held that the following
principles would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of High Court given by section
482/582 BNSS:
 The power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the
redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party;
 It should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure to the ends of justice;
 It should not be exercised as against the express bar of the law engrafted in any other
provision of the Code. Power to be exercised ex debito justitiae (out of necessity of
justice). It essentially means the court has a duty to rectify a situation where injustice or
grave error has occurred, even if it isn't explicitly mandated by law.
Here is a detailed explanation of when the inherent power of High Courts may be invoked under
the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (and the broader framework of the Indian legal
system), illustrated with case law examples:
1. Prevention of Abuse of Process of Court
High Courts may invoke inherent power to prevent the abuse of the process of any lower court.
For example, if a case has been filed that is vexatious, frivolous, or does not show any merit, the
High Court can quash the proceedings to prevent harassment of an individual.
Case Law:
 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992): The Supreme Court held that the inherent power
of the High Court can be invoked to quash an FIR or criminal proceedings if the
allegations are vague, absurd, or patently false. It is an important decision establishing
guidelines on when the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be used.
2. Quashing of FIR
The High Court’s inherent powers can be exercised to quash an FIR if it is manifestly clear that
the allegations made in the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offense, or if the FIR is filed with
malafide intentions or due to ulterior motives.
Case Law:
 Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote (1980): The Supreme Court held that an
FIR can be quashed by the High Court if no cognizable offense is disclosed or the
continuation of the proceedings would lead to an injustice or abuse of the process.
 Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998): The Court emphasized that the
High Court can quash proceedings if the ingredients of the offense are not prima facie
made out or the prosecution appears to be motivated.
3. Securing the Ends of Justice
The High Court may use its inherent powers to ensure that justice is done in situations where no
other specific remedy is available. If a party has suffered a miscarriage of justice, or there is an
abuse of legal processes, the High Court can intervene under its inherent powers.
Case Law:
 R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (1960): In this case, the Supreme Court observed that the
inherent powers of the High Court are meant to secure the ends of justice and prevent the
abuse of legal procedures. The Court emphasized that the inherent powers should be
invoked sparingly and only in cases where no other remedy is available.
4. Power to Stay Proceedings
Under Section 482, High Courts may stay the proceedings of any lower court if it finds that
proceeding with the case would be an abuse of process or contrary to the principles of justice.
Case Law:
 K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1993): The Court upheld the inherent powers of the High
Court to stay proceedings under certain circumstances, particularly when it is apparent
that the proceedings are being carried out in an arbitrary or illegal manner.
5. Power to Modify or Set Aside Orders
In certain instances, the High Court can modify or set aside orders passed by subordinate courts,
including orders of arrest, bail, or even administrative orders that may appear unjust or unlawful.
Case Law:
 State of West Bengal v. S.K. Shah (1975): The Court reiterated that the inherent powers
of the High Court can be invoked to set aside illegal orders passed by subordinate courts,
especially in cases of wrongful detention or where fundamental rights are being violated.
6. Exercise of Power in Cases of Malafide Prosecution
The High Court may invoke its inherent powers when it finds that the prosecution has been
initiated with malafide intent or for improper purposes, such as harassment or personal vendettas.
Case Law:
 G. S. Chahal v. State of Punjab (1993): The Supreme Court held that the High Court can
intervene if it finds that the prosecution was initiated with malafide intent and that it was
in the nature of an abuse of legal processes.
7. Intervention in Cases Involving Constitutional Rights
The High Court’s inherent powers can also be invoked in cases where there is a violation of a
person’s constitutional rights, including the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution. The court can step in to ensure that justice is delivered and that no one is deprived
of their rights unjustly.
Case Law:
 Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978): The Supreme Court held that the High Court
has the jurisdiction and the inherent power to intervene in cases where a person’s
constitutional rights are violated, such as in cases of unlawful detention.
Inherent Powers of Other Courts under BNSS:
 Sessions Judge and Additional Sessions Judge: These courts also have the power to
pass any order as per law.
 Magistrates: Courts of Magistrates can award imprisonment in default of payment of
fine as authorized by law.
 Successors-in-Office: Section 29 of BNSS specifies that the powers of judges and
magistrates can be exercised by their successors-in-office. This ensures continuity in
judicial functions even when a judge or magistrate is absent or has left their post. If
there's uncertainty about who the successor is, the Sessions Judge (for Judges) or the
Chief Judicial Magistrate/District Magistrate (for Magistrates) will decide.
Procedural Nuances (steps) and Judicial Trends

1. Temporal Authority Controversy:

Whether the BNSS applies to cases registered before its enforcement on July 1, 2024 is a
debated issue.

Key Judgments:

 Rajasthan High Court – Vijay Singh v. State (2024): Held that FIRs filed before July
1, 2024 will continue under the CrPC, and only fresh cases will fall under the BNSS.
 Punjab & Haryana High Court: Ruled that even for trials conducted under CrPC,
appeals filed post-July 1, 2024, will be governed by the BNSS.

Summary: This issue is yet to be conclusively settled by the Supreme Court. High Courts
currently differ in their interpretation of how the BNSS applies to ongoing cases.

2. Quashing of Charge Sheets

Legal Position: Section 528 allows the High Court to quash criminal proceedings, including charge
sheets, even after the court has taken cognizance—if doing so serves justice.
 Key Case: Kiran Sharma v. CBI (2024): The Supreme Court upheld that a High Court can dismiss
charge sheets without evidence, stating that continuing baseless prosecution is an abuse of process.

Summary: Charge sheets can be quashed under Section 528 if there is no prima facie case or if the
allegations are clearly unfounded.

3. Bail Cancellation through Inherent Powers

While Section 528 doesn’t explicitly deal with bail, courts can invoke inherent powers to cancel
bail in special circumstances.
Key Case: State v. Mohan Das (2024) – Allahabad HC:
Bail was revoked for a murder accused who threatened witnesses. The High Court held that
denying bail was necessary to “secure the ends of justice.”
Summary: Inherent powers may be used to cancel bail if the accused misuses liberty, threatens
the trial process, or intimidates witnesses.
Conclusion:
The inherent powers of the High Court under Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (and
generally under Section 482 CrPC) are invoked in situations where justice needs to be ensured,
and the legal process is being abused. The case laws discussed provide clarity on the
circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its power, ranging from preventing the
abuse of court procedures to protecting an individual’s constitutional rights and ensuring fair
trials. These powers are meant to serve as a safeguard against the misuse of law and to ensure the
efficient administration of justice.