Article 142 of the Constitution: Powers, Scope, and Concerns

#GS-2 #Indian Polity & Constitution #Constitution #Judiciary #Separation of Powers #Current Events #National #Judgements & Cases

Key takeaways

Article 142(1) of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court of India extraordinary power to issue orders necessary to deliver complete justice.
An IIM Ahmedabad study recorded 1,579 references and 791 direct invocations of Article 142 between 1950 and 2023.
In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the Court clarified that Article 142 must supplement rather than replace statutory law.
Bypassing procedural checks under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 raises institutional concerns about judicial overreach and separation of powers.

The Supreme Court of India recently used its special powers under Article 142 to cancel several First Information Reports (FIRs) across multiple states.
These criminal cases were originally registered against students and activists protesting over the NEET-UG 2026 examination leak.
The apex court issued this order to enforce an agreed settlement reached between the Union government and the protest organizers.
By directly cancelling these cases together, the Supreme Court bypassed standard statutory procedures, starting a fresh debate on the proper limits of Article 142.

Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to pass orders to achieve complete justice, but its broad scope creates risks of judicial overreach.
To maintain the separation of powers, judges should exercise restraint, follow established precedents, and use this provision only to fill legal gaps.

Under Article 142(1), the Supreme Court can issue any decree or order necessary to deliver complete justice in any case pending before it.
The Constitution does not explicitly define what constitutes complete justice, leaving the phrase open to judicial interpretation.
Under Article 142(2), the Court holds powers to enforce person attendance, discover documents, order investigations, and punish for contempt of court.
This constitutional provision originates from Section 210 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which relied on principles of equity and good conscience.
The Constituent Assembly adopted this provision in 1949 as Article 118 without conducting any formal debate.
Because lawmakers left its scope undefined, the Supreme Court has defined its own limits on a case-by-case basis over the last seven decades.

An IIM Ahmedabad study revealed 1,579 references and 791 direct uses of Article 142 between 1950 and 2023.
In the 1989 Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India case, the Court approved a USD 470 million settlement and quashed criminal charges.
In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Court laid down workplace safety guidelines before Parliament enacted the PoSH Act, 2013.
During the 2019 Ayodhya title dispute, the apex court awarded 5 acres of alternative land to the Sunni Waqf Board using this power.
In 2022, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to grant immediate release to the convict A.G. Perarivalan.
The Supreme Court regularly uses this authority to grant immediate divorces in cases involving irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

In Prem Chand Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962), the Court ruled that orders under Article 142 must respect Fundamental Rights.
In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), a Constitution Bench stated that Article 142 should fill statutory gaps rather than replace laws.
Despite setting these self-imposed boundaries, Supreme Court benches have occasionally ignored earlier restrictive precedents.

By quashing thousands of FIRs at once in the exam protest matter, the Court skipped individualized review required under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The absence of a clear statutory definition for complete justice gives individual benches broad and unchecked discretionary power.
Because the Supreme Court operates through two-judge Division Benches, outcomes often depend on the personal views of individual judges.
Interventions in policy matters, such as banning liquor shops within 500 metres of highways, create risks of judicial overreach.
Because these restrictions are entirely self-imposed by the judiciary, no external constitutional body can enforce them against the Court.

Under Section 172(1)(b) of its Constitution, courts in South Africa can issue any order that is just and equitable in constitutional matters.
Under Section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, courts in Canada can grant appropriate remedies for constitutional violations.

Legal experts suggest restricting the use of Article 142 exclusively to Constitution Benches composed of at least 5 judges.
The Court must provide clear written reasons and apply proportionality tests whenever it uses Article 142 to address legal gaps.
Judges should strictly observe established precedents to ensure that extraordinary powers serve as a last resort rather than a procedural shortcut.