Article 142 of the Indian Constitution

About Article 142 of the Indian Constitution

• Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to pass such “decree or order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it”.
  • Unlike most Constitutional provisions, it does not define “complete justice” or specify when it may be used.
• Origin: The origins of this provision can be traced back to Section 210 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
  • Its roots also lie in the colonial practice of resolving disputes based on “justice, equity and good conscience” when written law was absent.
  • In the Draft Constitution, it appeared as Article 118 and was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on May 27, 1949, without a debate.
  • Two amendments to it were moved and then withdrawn.
  • Its broad powers were largely left for the Supreme Court to define through case-by-case rulings over the next seven decades.
• The power is wide but not unlimited and cannot be exercised in violation of constitutional provisions, including fundamental rights. 
• Previous instance of use of this power by the Supreme Court: It has been invoked in several important cases:
  • Bhopal gas tragedy (1989): The Court approved a $470 million settlement from Union Carbide and quashed the criminal cases against the company.
  • Ayodhya title dispute: The Court used the principle of “preponderance of probability” to settle the dispute and awarded five acres of land to the Muslim side.
  • A.G. Perarivalan case (2022): The Court ordered the release of Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict A.G. Perarivalan.
  • Divorce cases: The Court can use Article 142 to grant divorce when it finds that a marriage has irretrievably broken down.
  • Public interest litigation: The provision can also be used in public interest litigations, among other cases.
  • An IIM Ahmedabad study of cases from 1950–2023 found 1,579 references to Article 142 and 791 direct invocations, mostly in civil matters. 
• Has the court tried to limit its own discretion:
  • The Court has itself tried to limit the use of Article 142 to prevent excessive judicial discretion.
  • Prem Chand Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962): The Court held that Article 142 orders must be consistent with fundamental rights and existing laws.
  • Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998): The Court said Article 142 can supplement a law by filling gaps, but cannot replace or override an existing statutory framework.
  • However, the Supreme Court has often not followed these limitations strictly.
• How recent CJP order test that limit:
  • Normally, each FIR is examined on its individual facts before being quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita.
  • The court considers whether an offence has actually been committed or whether the case is clearly malicious.
  • In the CJP order, thousands of FIRs across several states were clubbed together without individual scrutiny as part of a settlement between the Centre and a protest group.
    • This bypasses the statutory process for quashing FIRs and uses Article 142 to determine how the law should operate.
  • The Court also used its Article 142 discretion to decide who would be excluded from the relief.