Sometimes, a judgment reminds us that courts are not just institutions of law they are also institutions of justice.
In a recent case, the Supreme Court of India stepped in to protect a widow who was on the verge of losing her home due to loan recovery proceedings. Using its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution the power to do “complete justice” the Court allowed her to settle the loan on relaxed and equitable terms.
📌 What Happened?
The widow’s late husband had taken loans of around ₹50 lakh by mortgaging their residential house. After he passed away during the second wave of COVID-19 in May 2021, the loan account turned into an NPA.
The bank initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.
Earlier, the bank had offered a One Time Settlement (OTS) of about ₹34.69 lakh against total dues of approximately ₹71 lakh. However, due to financial hardship after her husband’s death, she could not arrange the full payment within the deadline. The OTS expired, and recovery action continued.
The Madras High Court refused to grant her relief.
She then approached the Supreme Court.
⚖️ What Did the Supreme Court Do?
The Court acknowledged that legally, the bank was within its rights. The dues were outstanding. The mortgage was valid.
But the Court also saw the human side of the case a widow who had lost her husband during the pandemic and was struggling to save her only home.
Balancing legality with compassion, the Court:
✔ Allowed her to settle the account by paying ₹33 lakh (along with the amount already paid earlier).
✔ Directed the bank to release the property documents after payment.
✔ Froze further financial burden if she complied within the timeline.
At the same time, the Court made it clear that this relief was granted because of exceptional humanitarian circumstances not as a general rule for all borrowers.
💬 Why This Judgment Matters
This decision is important because it shows how Article 142 can be used to ensure fairness in extraordinary situations.
The Court did not say that banks cannot recover their money. It did not dilute financial discipline. Instead, it recognised that rigid enforcement, in this case, would have led to extreme hardship.
The message is simple:
Law must be applied, but justice must remain humane.
In cases involving death, pandemic hardship, and residential homes, courts may step in where strict technical application of the law would cause disproportionate suffering.
🏛️ Final Thought
Article 142 is not used lightly. It is reserved for rare situations where the Court feels that strict legal outcomes may not deliver complete justice.
In this case, the Supreme Court chose compassion without compromising legality.
And that is what makes this judgment both powerful and deeply human.
#SupremeCourt #Article142 #BankingLaw #SARFAESI #CompleteJustice
Add a Comment