In a rare move, the Supreme Court on March 19 invoked its plenary powers and ordered forthwith removal of Forest Minister Th Shyamkumar of the BJP government in Manipur, restraining him from entering the Assembly till further orders.

The top court rarely invokes its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to remove a cabinet minister from any government.

What is the case all about?

The polls for 60 seats of the Manipur Legislative Assembly were conducted in March 2017 in which Congress Party emerged as the single largest party with 28 seats and BJP came second with 21 seats.

However, a BJP led government was sworn in and Th Shyamkumar, a Congress MLA, switched sides and became a minister in the state government leading to filing of several pleas in April 2017 with the Speaker seeking his disqualification under the anti-defection law.

The top court had taken note of inordinate delays in deciding 13 pleas for disqualification of lawmakers pending since April 2017.

On January 21 this year, the court gave the Speaker a chance to perform his functions under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India by stating, “given the fact that such a long period had already gone by without any decision, one month should suffice for the Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions before him”.

After one month expired, an application was filed by the Speaker requesting for eight more weeks in order to decide the cases before him. 

On March 4, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the Speaker had not pressed his application and stated that a decision would be forthcoming within 10 days from that date.

When the matter was taken up on March 18, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Speaker and sought deferment of the matter till March 28 saying that by that time, definitely, there would be a judgment on the aforesaid disqualification applications by the Speaker. 

Mehta also said that March 28 has been notified for the pronouncement of order by the Speaker on the disqualification plea.

A bench of Justices R.F. Nariman and S. Ravindra Bhat said that given the extraordinary facts in the present case, “we are constrained to use our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India”. 

“Th Shyamkumar is restrained from entering the Legislative Assembly till further orders of this Court. Needless to add, he will cease to be a minister of the Cabinet immediately,” the bench said, posting the matter for further hearing on March 30.

What is Article 142?

Article 142 deals with enforcement of decrees and orders of the Supreme Court.

It states that, “The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.”

Section 2 states that “Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.”

Recent cases invoking Article 142

On November 9, 2019, the Supreme Court in the judgment on the Ayodhya title dispute used special powers granted in the Article 142 of the Constitution. Though the disputed 2.77 acres of land was awarded for a temple, based on the evidence, the top court invoked the powers of Article 142 to grant five acres for a mosque in Ayodhya.

The SC bench also invoked this Article to grant relief to Nirmohi Akhara and sought its inclusion on the trust formed by the Centre under Section 6 of the Ayodhya Act to construct Temple.

In October 2019, the Supreme Court exercised its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to annul a marriage of an estranged couple, residing separately for over two decades, saying it was a case of irretrievable breakdown of wedlock.

In December 2015, the Supreme Court appointed a former high court judge Justice Virendra Singh as Uttar Pradeshs Lokayukta after the state government failed to comply with its directives. The UP government failed to meet the Supreme Court deadline to appoint Lokayukta even after two rounds of marathon talks, which failed to come up with a consensus name.

Manorama Yearbook app is now available on Google Play Store and iOS App Store