Explore Article 142 of the Constitution as the Supreme Court’s power for ‘complete justice’ or ‘judicial overreach’, explained with cases, scope, and constitutional significance.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: When the Indian Constitution was framed, Article 142 was envisioned as an extraordinary provision enabling the Supreme Court to deliver “complete justice” in any case before it.
Originally meant as a safety valve, it has in recent years evolved into a powerful judicial tool, sparking debates over potential overreach and separation of powers. From the Tamil Nadu Governor – State Government dispute to deadlocks over collegium appointments, Article 142 has emerged at the heart of a growing constitutional controversy.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Under Article 142: “9 Years, 3 States, 1 Resolution”
What is Article 142 of the Indian Constitution?
The provision reads as,
Article 142: Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc
(1) 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 order 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.
(2) 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.
Article 142 is a unique constitutional provision that empowers the Supreme Court of India to deliver “complete justice” in any matter pending before it. It was conceived to address situations where existing laws or statutory provisions are inadequate to provide effective remedies. This power is extraordinary and discretionary, reflecting the spirit of judicial creativity and activism, but it is also to be exercised cautiously and sparingly.
Article 142(1): In the exercise of its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court may pass such a decree or make such an order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. Any such decree or order shall be enforceable throughout India in such manner as prescribed by law or, until then, as directed by the President.
Article 142(2): Subject to parliamentary law, the Supreme Court has powers to:
- Secure the attendance of any person.
- Order the discovery or production of documents.
- Investigate or punish contempt of itself.
Scope and Nature of Power:
- Discretionary & Unique: This power is exclusive to the Supreme Court and cannot be exercised by any other court in India.
- Judicial Innovation: Enables the Court to create guidelines, issue directives, and craft remedies in the absence of legislation.
- Legislative Gap-Filling: Allows the Court to override existing laws or fill legal lacunae to ensure justice.
- Quasi-Executive & Legislative Functions: In exceptional cases, the Court may issue directions to governmental bodies or authorities.
The Idea of “Complete Justice”:
The concept means going beyond procedural technicalities to ensure fairness, equity, and protection of constitutional values, fundamental rights, and public interest.
It includes:
- Interpreting laws in the light of evolving societal needs.
- Overriding legal provisions where necessary to avoid injustice.
- Safeguarding human rights and addressing democratic breakdowns.
Article 142 has been invoked:
- To resolve constitutional and public interest matters (e.g., environmental issues, governance breakdown).
- To protect minority rights and ensure equal treatment under the law.
- To fill legislative voids until Parliament acts.
Object behind Article 142:
Article 142 of the Constitution of India provides an extraordinary power to the Hon’ble Supreme Court to do complete justice to the litigants who have suffered traversed illegality or injustice in the proceedings.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Dissolves 15-Year-Old Marriage, Orders Rs 1.25 Crore Alimony to Wife
‘Complete Justice’ under Article 142 of the Constitution
The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to grant admission to Atul Kumar, a Dalit student who had excelled in the IIT entrance examination but missed the deadline to pay the admission fee of Rs 17,500. The Court held that,
“a talented student like the petitioner, who belongs to a marginalized group, should not be left in the lurch,”
adding that the power under Article 142 exists “precisely to cover such a situation.”
The Nature of Article 142:
Article 142 is a unique constitutional provision empowering the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to secure complete justice in matters before it. Its draft (Article 118) was adopted without debate in the Constituent Assembly, leaving its scope to be defined entirely by the Court.
A recent IIM Ahmedabad study found that between 1950 and 2023, Article 142 or the phrase “complete justice” was mentioned in 1,579 cases, with explicit reliance in 791 cases, most being civil in nature.
Judicial Evolution of Article 142:
- Early Restraint: In Prem Chand Garg (1962), the Court ruled that orders under Article 142 must be consistent with fundamental rights and statutory laws.
- Expansive Phase: In Delhi Judicial Service Association (1991) and Union Carbide (1991), the Court declared Article 142 to be a constitutional power beyond the reach of ordinary law, ordering over $470 million compensation in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.
- Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995): Rejected the earlier restraint in Prem Chand Garg, affirming that statutory provisions could not limit Article 142.
- Judicial Check: In Supreme Court Bar Association (1998), a five-judge bench clarified that Article 142 cannot supplant substantive law. Similarly, in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006), the Court held that Article 142 cannot be used to perpetuate an illegality.
Recent Trends:
- Expansion: The Court used Article 142 to:
- Ban liquor sales near highways (2017).
- Recognize irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce (2023), introducing elements of no-fault divorce.
- Intervene in Chandigarh mayoral elections (2024).
- Restraint: In High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (2023), the Court ruled Article 142 cannot automatically vacate High Court stay orders. In a recent arbitration case (2024), a Constitution Bench cautioned against its use for appointing arbitrators.
Reason to Incorporate Article 142
The framers of the Indian Constitution incorporated Article 142 to address situations where litigants face undue delays or inadequate remedies due to procedural or statutory limitations. This provision serves as a constitutional tool to ensure that justice is not denied merely because of gaps in the law or the rigidities of the judicial system.
Article 142 confers plenary powers on the Supreme Court, enabling it to pass any decree or order necessary to do complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. Such decrees or orders are enforceable throughout the country in the manner prescribed by Parliament or, until such provision is made, as directed by the President.
These powers are inherent and complementary to the statutory powers of the Court, allowing it to fill legislative gaps and address extraordinary situations.
Judicial Interpretation:
DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. (1996): The Court emphasized that the uniqueness of this power, vested solely in the apex court, ensures its use with restraint and circumspection, always aiming to do complete justice between the parties.
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998): The Court held that powers under Article 142 are supplementary, complementary, and residuary to those expressly granted, and may be exercised so long as they are equitable, just, and consistent with due process of law.
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary: The Supreme Court clarified that Article 142 can be invoked to address exceptional circumstances affecting the larger public interest, reinforcing trust in the rule of law.
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak: The Court held that discretion under Article 142 must not be arbitrary and must remain consistent with statutory provisions.
Practical Implementations:
Ayodhya Dispute (Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das): The Court exercised Article 142 to:
- Allocate the disputed 2.77 acres entirely to Hindus.
- Direct the Central Government to allot five acres to the Sunni Waqf Board as compensation for the 1992 mosque demolition.
- Include Nirmohi Akhada in the trust managing the temple land.
Highway Liquor Ban Case: The Court invoked Article 142 to ban the sale of alcohol within 500 meters of national and state highways to reduce accidents caused by drunk driving.
Concerns and Challenges
Ambiguity in “Complete Justice”: The term is undefined, leading to wide judicial discretion and possible inconsistency across cases.
Judicial Overreach: Excessive use may encroach on legislative or executive functions, as seen in S.R. Bommai (1994).
Weak Accountability: Judicial decisions under Article 142 face limited scrutiny, raising separation of powers concerns.
Legal Uncertainty: Discretionary rulings can create unpredictability for individuals, businesses, and governance.
Perceived Erosion of Rule of Law: Bypassing statutory procedures may be viewed as undermining established legal norms.
The Tamil Nadu Bill Controversy (2024)
In 2024, the Tamil Nadu government passed 11 bills that the Governor either delayed or withheld assent to, raising concerns under Article 200 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, invoking Article 142, “deemed the bills passed,” effectively bypassing the Governor and indirectly the President’s constitutional role, since the Governor is the President’s appointee.
This move set a significant precedent, allowing the judiciary to override executive delays or objections, shifting from traditional judicial review to judicial enforcement with a quasi-legislative character. The development also raised a deeper constitutional question:
If a Governor refers a bill to the President, can the Court now short-circuit this process under Article 142?
While the ruling did not directly involve the President, its implications for the balance of powers between the judiciary and the Union are profound and potentially unsettling.
Collegium Conflict:
In the 2015 NJAC judgment, the Supreme Court struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission, restoring the collegium system. When the Centre delayed judicial appointments, the Court warned it might invoke Article 142 to enforce its selections, a threat repeated by 2023 with statements like, “We may be compelled to use Article 142 if appointments are not acted upon.”
Such a move risks reducing the President, constitutionally the appointer of judges under Article 124, to a mere formality, bypassing executive consultation entirely. While the Union can push back through slower constitutional tools like Article 131 (Centre–State disputes), Articles 256 and 257 (compliance directions), or compliance petitions via the Attorney General, Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to act instantly and without equivalent accountability.
Federalism at Risk?:
Overuse of this provision threatens federal balance, allowing the judiciary to interpret laws, enforce its own orders, and override executive and legislative functions, transforming it into a de facto “super-government.” Article 142 was intended as an emergency power, but if deployed in every dispute between the judiciary and executive, it risks undermining the President’s constitutional authority and distorting the very structure of the Republic.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Rejects Plea Seeking Guidelines on Recusal of Judges
Landmark Case Laws Evolving Article 142
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P. (1963):
The Court held that powers under Article 142 are wide, but cannot be exercised in a manner inconsistent with fundamental rights or constitutional provisions.
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967):
The Court invoked Article 142 to apply the doctrine of prospective overruling, holding that its powers are wide and flexible enough to evolve new doctrines for justice.
Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991):
The Court held that ordinary legal limitations do not restrict Article 142. It approved the settlement with Union Carbide and quashed pending proceedings to secure complete justice in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case.
Delhi Judicial Services Association v. State of Gujarat (1991):
The Court ruled that its inherent powers under Articles 142, 32, and 136 allow it to quash proceedings before any court to ensure complete justice.
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998):
The Court held that Article 142 powers are plenary, residual, and supplementary in nature—meant to uphold due process, ensure fairness, and do complete justice, though not to override substantive law.
Recent Case Laws on Article 142 of COI
Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023):
The Court held that under Article 142, it may depart from procedural and substantive laws if justified by public policy. It can dissolve marriages without the second-motion requirement, quash criminal proceedings, and grant divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown where continuation of marriage is unjust.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar v. Paramjit Kaur Panesar (2023):
The Court ruled that marriages can be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown even if one spouse opposes, though such discretion must be exercised with caution.
High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. (2024):
The Court clarified that Article 142 aims to do complete justice but cannot nullify substantive rights of non-parties or benefits validly accrued under prior judgments. It may issue procedural directions but cannot override natural justice principles or substantive rights.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
ALSO READ: CJI Gavai Slams Bulldozer Justice In India: “Right To Shelter Is A Fundamental Right”
Conclusion
Article 142 vests the Supreme Court with an inherent, exclusive power to do complete justice by bridging legislative gaps. It embodies a justice-oriented approach, prioritizing equity over strict legality, and has often been used for the greater public good. However, its vast, unbounded scope requires caution and checks.
This power is meant as an exceptional remedy, not a routine tool. Frequent reliance risks undermining institutional balance and even the authority of the President, blurring the lines between judiciary and executive.
To safeguard constitutional democracy, the following measures are essential:
- Define “complete justice” through guiding principles to avoid arbitrariness.
- Institutional safeguards, such as requiring Constitution Bench scrutiny and procedural fairness.
- Restrict routine usage, ensuring it is invoked only as a last resort.
- Legislative follow-up, encouraging Parliament to fill gaps identified by the Court.
Ultimately, Article 142 reflects India’s commitment to justice beyond technicalities, but preserving its exceptional character is crucial for maintaining judicial integrity, institutional discipline, and democratic balance.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Article 142
