1 Introduction:
The Court's inherent power is the authority to administer its affairs and ensure justice for smooth and efficient administration. This includes the authority to regulate judicial processes, execute court orders and judgments, and penalize individuals who disrupt court proceedings or fail to comply with court decisions. The Court's inherent power is derived from the principle that the judiciary has the authority to regulate its affairs and ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice. It is an essential aspect of the Court's independence and is necessary for the effective operation of the judicial system.
2 Meaning of
Inherent Power:
The inherent power of the Court refers to the power or authority
that is inherent or intrinsic powers of the Court. In legal terms, inherent
power refers to a court's authority to do things necessary for the proper
exercise of its jurisdiction, even if such powers are not explicitly granted to
it by law. It includes the power to enforce its orders, control its procedures,
protect the integrity of the judicial process, and ensure that justice is done.
Inherent power is essential in legal proceedings because it allows courts to
take necessary steps to fulfill their role as neutral arbitrators and ensure
that the rule of law is upheld.
In the case of Begum Khaleda Zia VS. Anti-Corruption Commission & others[1], inherent powers of the Court are defined as the powers which are
essential for the due discharge of the functions of the Court and are not
explicitly provided by any law.
3 Inherent
Powers under The Code of Civil Procedure:
Section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, states the
provisions of inherent powers of the Court. According to this section, for the
ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, nothing in
this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the Court's inherent
power to make such orders as may be necessary.[2]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is not an exhaustive one. The
legislature cannot contemplate all the possible circumstances that may arise in
future litigations. In that case, Court has to find the paths of solution for
providing justice to the parties. Thus, inherent powers come to assist in such
unforeseen circumstances.
However, inherent powers are not conferred on the Court by any laws
or regulations. They are inherent in the Court by virtue of its duty to ensure
justice for the parties who seek relief from the Court. In the case of Abdul
Malek vs. Bangladesh, it is held that the inherent power of the Court is not derived
from any specific law or statute. Instead, it is inherent in the Court's
authority as a judicial body.[3]
4 Scope of
the Inherent Powers of the Court:
The inherent powers provided under section 151 of The Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 can be exercised for the purpose —
a)
To secure the ends of
justice; &
b)
To prevent abuse of the
process of the Court.
4.1 Ends of
Justice:
The expression ends of justice, used in section 151 of The Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, recognizes vast powers inherently possessed by the Court
to do justice in a given case. In the case of Bangladesh Shilpa Bank vs
Bangladesh Hotels Ltd 1986, it is held that disregarding the established
principles and norms of law, it must not be supposed that the Court can make an
order.[4]
What satisfies the ends of justice would always rely on the specifics of each
case and the prerequisites of justice. In the case of Md. Moniruzzaman vs.
Bangladesh, the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, held
that the Court's inherent powers could be exercised to prevent injustice and
secure the ends of justice.[5]
4.2 Abuse of
Process:
The expression abuse of process, as used in section 151 under The
Code of Civil Procedure, may be committed either by the Court or by a party to
the suit. Abuse of process by a court would refer to the improper use of the Court's
legal authority or function for an improper purpose. This could include actions
such as issuing an injunction or order without proper legal basis or using the Court's
power to further the interests of the Court or the judge rather than to serve
justice.
In general, the courts are expected to act with integrity and
impartiality and follow the law and legal procedures to ensure a fair and just
outcome in each case. Abuse of process by a court would breach these principles
and undermine public trust in the judicial system. The injustice done to the
party must be remedied based on the principle that an act of the Court will
prejudice no one.
In civil law, abuse of process can refer to legal processes, such
as filing a lawsuit or issuing a subpoena for an improper purpose, rather than seeking
a legitimate legal remedy. This can include using the legal process to harass
or intimidate the other party or accomplish a goal outside the scope of the legal
proceedings. For example, if a party to a civil lawsuit were to file a baseless
lawsuit to cause inconvenience or expense to the other party, that could be
considered an abuse of process.
Some more examples of the abuse of the process of the Courts are —
a)
Obtaining benefits by practicing
fraud in Court.
b)
Encouraging multiplicity of
proceedings.
c)
Instituting vexatious,
obstructive tactics.
d)
Introducing scandalous or
objectionable matters in proceedings.
e)
Taking an undue advantage
over the opposite party.
f)
Circumventing the statutory
provision.
In the case of Abdul Malek vs. Bangladesh, the Supreme Court of
Bangladesh held that the Court's inherent power is not derived from any
specific law or statute but rather is inherent in the Court's authority as a
judicial body. The Court stated that this inherent power could be exercised to
prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.[6]
Abuse of process can be grounds for dismissing a lawsuit or sanctions against
the party engaged in the abuse. It is generally considered a severe breach of
the legal system, as it undermines the integrity of the judicial process and
erodes public trust in the legal system.
5 When Can a
Court Exercise Inherent Powers:
a)
Section 151 does not confer a
new authority on the Court but acknowledges the Court's inherent authority to
do some acts ex debito. The inherent power can only be exercised to meet the
objectives of substantial justice.
b)
Section 151 could only be
utilized when all other options have been exhausted. It confers no substantive
rights on the parties and is merely intended to circumvent obstacles arising
from standards of practice.
c)
To decide jurisdiction, even
if the Court finds it lacks jurisdiction.
6 Limitations
of Inherent Powers:
Though inherent powers undoubtedly strengthen the hands of the
Court to pass any order to do justice[7],
it has some limitations. Those limitations are mentioned below —
a)
Inherent powers under section
151 of The Code of Civil Procedure can't override the express provisions of the
law.
b)
The Court can't use inherent
powers arbitrarily.[8] It
must be satisfied that inherent powers are used to prevent abuses of the
process of the Court and to secure ends of justice.[9]
c)
When the aggrieved party has
other remedies available, the Court's inherent power under section 151 can't be
invoked.[10]
d)
With the signature and
sealing of the final decree, a petition under section 151 of The Code of Civil
Procedure is no longer permissible, and the decree cannot be altered.[11]
7 Conclusion:
The Court's primary purpose is to provide justice to the parties
before it. Sometimes, exisiting laws are failed to provide exact solutions for
specific facts and circumstances. To remedy the parties, Court uses its
inherent powers. The inherent powers of the Court do not provide by any law;
instead, it is inherent to the Court to provide justice to the parties. To
secure the ends of justice and of preventing abuse of the process of the Court,
inherent powers play an essential role and genuinely strengthen the hand of the
Court to pass any order to do justice.
[1]
Begum Khaleda Zia VS. Anti-Corruption
Commission & others (2019) 12 SCOB 141
[2]
The Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Section 151
[3]
Abdul Malek vs. Bangladesh (2007) 59 DLR
[4]
Bangladesh Shilpa Bank vs Bangladesh Hotels Ltd (1986) 38 DLR (AD) 69,
74
[6]
Abdul Malek (n 3)
[7]
Abu Sama vs Aby Syed (1996) 48 DLR 141
[8]
Sarkar
Ali Akkas, Law of Civil Procedure ( 1st
edn, Bijoy Law Book House, Dhaka 2021) 388
[9]
Atiar
Rahman vs Mahatabuddin (1988) 40 DLR
[10]
Sabirannisa
vs Kabir Ahmde (1997) 49 DLR
[11]
Ali
Akkas (n 8) 388
No comments:
Post a Comment