Article 142 gives the Supreme Court the authority to pass any order needed to deliver “complete justice” in any case that is before it.
NEW DELHI: In a major relief for 250 students, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday used its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure their education is not disrupted due to their institute shifting campuses.
Article 142 gives the Supreme Court the authority to pass any order needed to deliver “complete justice” in any case that is before it.
A hotel management institute in Mangaluru was operating from a property that it had to vacate by April 30, 2025, as per a settlement with the property owner. However, the new permanent campus was not ready, forcing the institute to look for a temporary location to continue its operations.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih heard the matter and considered the problems faced by the institute.
The bench stated:
“Faced with the difficulty that on the one hand the appellant has to vacate the present premises and on the other hand, the campus where it is proposing to relocate its institute, is not ready, the appellant is required to shift its institute at a temporary location.”
They further added:
“We find that this is a fit case wherein this court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to meet the ends of justice. If we fail to exercise the said power, the career of about 250 students would be jeopardised.”
The institute’s lawyer explained that while they plan to permanently move to a new location, it is still under construction and not ready. Hence, they made a temporary arrangement at another site that fulfills all educational requirements.
The counsel informed the court: The appellant did not have sufficient time to directly move to the new location which would have satisfied the requirements of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).
He also assured that: The temporary location, where the appellant proposed to shift the institute, would satisfy all other facilities required to be provided to students for academic excellence.
The institute asked the court to allow them to operate from the temporary location for up to two years, and requested AICTE and Mangalore University to give permission for the same.
The court took note that the institute has been functioning since 2004 and even received AICTE approval for the academic year 2024-25.
As a result, the bench directed:
“AICTE and Mangalore University not to insist, for a period of two years from today, on compliance with the requirement of the appellant shifting its institute to a place which is either owned by it or in respect of which the lease for a period of over 30 years is existing.”
The court also instructed the AICTE and the university to continue their permission and affiliation for the institute’s temporary location for the next two years.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court: “Cannot Allow the HC to Exercise Power Under Article 142”
However, the bench clarified: “However, the said premises would conform to the other requirement.”
The Supreme Court clearly stated that the institute must complete the construction of its new permanent campus within two years and move there before April 30, 2027.
Some Notable Judgements Under Article 142
1. Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P. (1963)
This was one of the earliest cases to interpret Article 142. The Constitution Bench had to decide whether the Supreme Court can issue an order that goes against the Fundamental Rights.
Justice Gajendragadkar made it clear that:
“This Court cannot in exercise of power under Article 142 make an order plainly inconsistent with any Constitutional provision.”
This judgement showed a restrictive interpretation of the Article.
2. I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab and Another (1967)
Here, the Court used the principle of prospective overruling and said:
“The power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is wide and elastic and enables this Court to formulate legal doctrines to meet the ends of justice.”
3. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991)
This case involved the Bhopal gas tragedy.
The Court said:
“The limitations or prohibitions contained in ordinary laws cannot ipso facto act as prohibitions to exercise if powers under Article 142 of COI.”
Using this power, the Supreme Court approved the settlement between the government and Union Carbide, and also quashed all criminal and civil cases against the company.
4.Delhi Judicial Services Association v. State of Gujarat (1991)
The Court noted:
“It’s inherent power under Article 142 coupled with power under Article 32 and Article 136 gives it the power to quash proceedings before any Court to do complete justice in the matter before the Supreme Court.”
5. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998)
This is one of the most quoted judgements regarding Article 142.
The Court said:
“The plenary powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution are inherent in the Court and are complementary to those powers which are specifically conferred on the Court by various statutes though are not limited by those statutes.”
It further said:
“These powers are of very wide amplitude and are in the nature of supplementary powers.”
And added:
“This plenary jurisdiction is, thus, the residual source of power which the Supreme Court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just and equitable to do so and in particular to ensure the observance of the due process of law, to do complete justice between the parties, while administering justice according to law.”
Recent Controversy: Tamil Nadu Governor’s Delay and Article 142
On April 8, 2024, in State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court used Article 142 to grant “deemed assent” to 10 bills that had been pending with Governor R.N. Ravi for a long time.
This raised debates about the limits of judicial power. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the judgment and described Article 142 as:
“A nuclear missile against democratic forces available to the judiciary 24×7.”
However, supporters praised the ruling for ensuring accountability and upholding federal values. Though the Court did not use the term “Article 142” in the Tamil Nadu government’s petition, the Supreme Court invoked it based on oral submissions.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala, speaking for the Bench, clarified that the Court acted only after careful thought. He said:
“On the contrary, it is only after deepest deliberations, and having reached the firm conclusion that the actions of the Governor—first in exhibiting prolonged inaction over the bills; secondly in declaring a simpliciter withholding of assent and returning the bills without a message; and thirdly in reserving the bills for the President in the second round—were all in clear violation of the procedure envisaged under the Constitution, that we have decided to declare the deeming of assent to the 10 bills, considering it to be our constitutional bounden duty.”
The Tamil Nadu government also referred to A.G. Perarivalan v. State (2023), where the Court had used Article 142 to release a prisoner after the Governor delayed the decision.
