While pronouncing no opinion on the merits of the rival stances on ‘Satyam, Shivam, Sundaram: Love Sublime’, Krishna Iyer J. in Raj Kapoor, (1980) 1 SCC 43 said, “omniscience, if one may adapt a great thought of Justice Holmes, is not the property of a judge“.
Nonetheless, any attempt to go further than the judgment of Krishna Iyer J. in Raj Kapoor, as regards issues relating to inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is ‘unwarranted‘. In short, there is no total ban on the exercise of inherent power where abuse of the process of the Court or other extraordinary situation excites the Court’s jurisdiction. The limitation is self-restraint, nothing more.
“As a sequel, we are constrained to hold that the Division Bench, particularly in paragraph 28, in the case of Mohit, (2013) 7 SCC 789 does not state the law correctly. We record our respectful disagreement.”
– Hon’ble Justice Shiva Kirti Singh, Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan, [Criminal Appeal No. 842 of 2016].