Context: The Supreme Court (SC) recently invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to quash FIRs against participants in nationwide examination protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP).
- The order gave legal effect to an assurance made by the government, while raising renewed questions about the scope and limits of judicial discretion under Article 142.
- The controversy centres on whether Article 142 can be used to override or replace an existing statutory procedure, particularly when dealing with criminal cases.
What Is Article 142?
- Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary to do “complete justice” in a matter pending before it.
- The Constitution does not define “complete justice” or prescribe precise circumstances in which the power can be exercised.
- This open-ended language gives the SC considerable flexibility to provide remedies where existing law may be inadequate or silent.
- Article 142 is therefore considered one of the important sources of the wide remedial powers of the Supreme Court.
Constitutional Origins
- The provision can be traced to Section 210 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and, further back, to the colonial practice of deciding disputes on principles of justice, equity and good conscience where written law was inadequate.
- In the Draft Constitution, it appeared as Article 118.
- The Constituent Assembly adopted the provision on 27 May 1949, without extensive debate; two proposed amendments were subsequently withdrawn.
How Has the Supreme Court Used Article 142?
- Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Used its powers in connection with the settlement involving Union Carbide, including the $470 million compensation arrangement and quashing of criminal proceedings.
- Ayodhya dispute: Used the provision while resolving the title dispute and directing that five acres of land be provided to the Muslim side.
- A.G. Perarivalan case: Ordered the release of a convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
- Matrimonial disputes: Used Article 142 to grant divorce where the Court concludes that a marriage has irretrievably broken down, even though irretrievable breakdown is not generally an independent statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Used the power to provide remedies in cases where conventional legal mechanisms may not adequately address the issue.
Scale of Use
- An empirical study by researchers at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, examined cases from 1950–2023 referring to Article 142 or “complete justice”.
- It identified 1,579 references and 791 direct invocations, with most applications occurring in civil matters.
Has the Supreme Court Tried to Limit Article 142?
- The SC has itself recognised that Article 142 cannot become an unlimited source of judicial discretion.
- In Prem Chand Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962), the Court held that orders under Article 142 must remain consistent with fundamental rights and applicable law.
- In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the Court clarified that Article 142 can supplement statutory law by filling a legal gap, but cannot supplant or override the substantive statutory framework.
- Thus, the broad principle is that Article 142 provides flexibility to achieve justice but does not give the Court unrestricted power to rewrite legislation.
Why Has the CJP Order Raised Questions?
Ordinary Procedure for Quashing FIRs
- FIRs are ordinarily examined individually when courts consider quashing proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
- The Court generally examines whether the alleged facts disclose an offence or whether the proceedings are manifestly malicious or legally unsustainable.
Issue With the Recent Order
- In the CJP case, thousands of FIRs across several States were clubbed together and addressed through a negotiated settlement between the government and the protest group.
- Critics argue that this approach bypassed the statutory mechanism for examining individual FIRs.
- The concern is that Article 142 may have been used not merely to fill a legal gap but to supplant the existing statutory procedure.
- The Court also exercised discretion in determining which individuals would receive the benefit of the relief, raising further concerns about the basis and limits of such discretion.
Core Constitutional Question
- The controversy essentially asks: Can Article 142 be used to override an existing statutory mechanism in the name of achieving “complete justice”?
- If used too broadly, Article 142 could potentially blur the distinction between judicial interpretation and judicial legislation.
Earlier Criticism of Article 142
- Article 142 has repeatedly attracted criticism because of its open-ended wording and potentially expansive judicial discretion.
- When the SC used Article 142 to treat Tamil Nadu Bills as having received assent, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar described the provision as a “nuclear missile” against democratic institutions.
- Former Attorney General K.K. Venugopal had earlier argued that although Article 142 had produced substantial benefits, appropriate checks and balances were necessary.
- Following the Sabarimala judgment, Venugopal described Article 142 as a “Kamdhenu” from which unlimited powers flowed and suggested that only Constitution Benches of at least five judges should be permitted to invoke it.
Significance for Separation of Powers
- Article 142 reflects the Constitution’s attempt to ensure that the Supreme Court can provide effective remedies where ordinary legal rules are insufficient.
- At the same time, unrestricted use can raise concerns regarding separation of powers, because Parliament makes laws while courts ordinarily interpret and apply them.
- The central challenge is therefore to balance judicial creativity and access to justice with constitutional restraint and legislative supremacy.
