INTRODUCTION
Power and authority are among the most intertwined notions in legal theory. While power comes with the burden of accountability, increased power comes at a higher risk of misuse. The Supreme Court of India has been given broad powers to fulfil its duty as the guardian of the Constitution. It is the highest emblem of justice, which has to ensure the prevalence of constitutional values in our nation. Article 142 grants the Supreme Court an exceptional privilege under the broad scope of achieving “complete justice”. It is one of the highlighted areas of conflict appearing between the executive and judiciary in recent times. The recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu[1]Which stipulated timelines for assent to legislative bills passed by state governors and the President of India, raised eyebrows regarding federalism and judicial overreach. The present blog will be an endeavour to navigate through the intricacies of this power to realise a concrete position.
ARTICLE 142: AN EXTRAORDINARY POWER
Article 142 is a unique provision that grants the Supreme Court the authority to “pass any decree or make any order” considering its necessity for securing “complete justice” in any pending matter before it. The term “complete justice” remains undetermined, rendering this power innately optional and susceptible to implicit abuse. Firstly drafted as Article 118, this provision was espoused by the Constituent Assembly, without any debate, thereby leaving its compass and operation entirely to the discretion of the Court.
This provision was originally intended as a tool to bridge gaps in case of a statutory vacuum or cases where strict adherence to statutory provision could cause imminent injustice. But over the course of recent years, this has been extensively used in a routine manner, which has fuelled confusion as to judicial overreach and constitutional balance.
The use of this extraordinary remedy in cases of compensation to victims in the Union Carbide case[2], and the admission of a Dalit student to IIT Dhanbad is unable to make payment of admission fees[3]Signify the positive image of this power. But it’s inordinate use in matters relating to the alcohol ban near highways, the coal block allocation case.[4]And recent judgment on the timeline for providing assent to legislative bills ignites the accusations of somewhat overextending upon other organs.
JUDICIAL OUTLOOK OVER THE YEARS
In its initial days, the Supreme Court sparingly used this provision. In the case of Prem Chand Garg vs Excise Commissioner, U. P.[5]The Court noted that a directive aimed at ensuring full justice must meet two criteria: adherence to fundamental rights and substantive provisions of relevant statutes. In Delhi Judicial Service Association vs State of Gujarat[6]It was determined that the powers conferred by Article 142 were entirely of a different calibre and were not subject to any limitations prescribed under ordinary laws.
In the landmark case of the Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India[7]The Supreme Court itself has termed the provision as “a valuable weapon” by which the Court can prevent injustice. It cannot be used to supersede the existing law but only to supplement the law. In 2023, in Shilpa Sailesh v Varun Sreenivasan[8]The court observed that the application of Article 142 must rely solely on general and specific public policy considerations. The court has used this power to address various grievances having public interest. But this does not mean that the Court assumes powers where the statute is purely categorical in its specified provisions.
In the case of Ashok Sadarangani v Union of India[9]The court observed that this authority ought to be utilised “sparingly” and must be “careful” before its execution. A crucial way to evaluate the application of Article 142 was observed in the case of Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v State of Karnataka.[10], where the court intervened despite a statutory framework addressing the issue, justified by the statement of “not conflicting with any law created by the legislature”.
Thus, over the years, the judicial intent has significantly varied from its initial position concerning any limitations upon such power. This power cannot be exercised in a manner that contravenes fundamental principles of public policy or statutory provisions that are of a non-derogable nature.The Court has emphasised that its equitable powers should not override substantive statutory rights unless there is a compelling reason grounded in justice and equity.
A THIN LINE BETWEEN ACTIVISM AND OVERREACH
India’s democracy rests on a balance existing between the legislature, executive, and judiciary, which are supposed to proceed as per demarcated constitutional values. Article 142 is essential for ensuring the rights of citizens in cases where no legal remedy exists and there is a danger of imminent injustice, as seen in the Union Carbide case.[11] And the Vishaka case.[12] It also establishes a system of checks and balances on other branches of government.
But if this blanket is used as a norm in the interpretation of provisions, even in the presence of statutory provisions, it could lead to overreach. The confirmation for employing Article 142 in instances of prohibiting liquor sales near national highways, acknowledgement of irretrievable marriage breakdown as a valid reason for divorce, and setting aside of mayor elections in Chandigarh while refusing such an invocation in the appointment of arbitrators and interference with the policy of demonetisation cause chaos and irregularity in the determination of the scope of such power.
This power often casually bypasses the authority of the legislative or executive on the issues concerned, as judgments are pronounced without waiting for responses from the concerned authorities. From the view of the doctrine of separation of powers, a fundamental principle calls for restraint upon each branch and showing respect for the functions of others. Recent judgments of the Supreme Court have not shown such a kind of restraint and respect. While some experts see this lack of restraint on the action of the judiciary as a part of activism, others arguably label it as a clear case of overreach. It has led to a fear of the activism of the judiciary to step into the job of the other branches of government whenever it feels such a branch is failing in its duty to act. Furthermore, the unbounded nature of the Supreme Court similarly diminishes the transparency and effectiveness in the utilisation of such power, which operates without any form of limitation.
Another facet of the theory of separation of powers encompasses the concept of checks and balances. For example, in the Governor Case[13]The action of the court was to support the constitutional mandate of the legislature, whose bills were thwarted by the governor. The invocation of Article 142 consistently empowers the Court to offer any form of relief; however, ambiguously exercising this power often leads to claims of overreach. When a court makes law beyond mere interpretation, it lands in the legislative domain. So, the basis of difference is the use of such power in a manner to respect the ideals of constitutional mandate and take every measure to minimise any threat of overreach.
BALANCING JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AND GOVERNANCE
The boundary between restraint and overreach is often blurry, uncertain, and confusing. As long as intersections exist between law and public life, there will remain a role for the Court’s discretionary power under Article 142. This provision remains an important tool for delivering justice, but its amplifying use in governance matters raises issues about judicial overreach. Striking a balance between judicial independence and administrative authority is essential to uphold popular principles. And as long as the rule of law prevails, there will be calls to use it sparingly, each time upholding the indigenous principles and esteeming the separation of powers. A few recommended measures to bring conformity to the system are-
- Well-Defined Rules: Setting specific boundaries on the application of Article 142 can reduce excessive judicial interference. Enactment of a legislative or executive framework regarding to technicalities of this provision could diminish any concerns of overreach.
- Defining ‘complete justice’: The integral part of this part is ambiguous, which is interpreted at the discretion of the court. This discretion in wordings provides scope for any misuse of power, which could be limited by circumscribing its definition within any kind of limitations.
- Judicial Review vs. Judicial Enforcement– Courts must ensure justice without legislating from the bench or bypassing administrative authority.
CONCLUSION
For the protection of a democratic mechanism, each constitutional organ must respect the boundaries set by the Constitution. Article 142 is meant to be a remedy for only extraordinary circumstances; if it is used casually, it contravenes its exceptional character. This power is essentially curative, not something which encroaches upon the role of the executive or legislature. Its overuse risks the creation of dissonance in India’s sensitive constitutional equilibrium. Therefore, there is a need to strike a balance between its justified reach and overreach.
Author(s) Name: Sumit Kumar (University Five Year Law College, Jaipur, Rajasthan)
References:
[1] State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 419
[2] Union Carbide Corporation vs Union Of India 1992 AIR 248
[3]Apoorva, ‘Supreme Court invokes Article 142 to aid Dalit student’s IIT fee issue; Grants admission to original allotment batch’(SCC Online, 1 October 2024) <https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/10/01/supreme-court-invokes-article-142-dalit-student-iit-fee-issue-grants-admission-original-allotment-batch/>accessed 8 May 2025
[4]K.K. Venugopal, ‘Article 142 and the need for judicial restraint’ (The Hindu, 18 May 2017) https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article-142-and-the-need-for-judicial-restraint/article18474919.ece accessed 9 May 2025
[5] Prem Chand Garg vs Excise Commissioner, U. P.1963 AIR 996
[6] Delhi Judicial Service Association vs State of Gujarat 1991 AIR 2176
[7] Supreme Court Bar Association v Union of India 1998 (4) SCC 409
[8] Shilpa Sailesh v Varun Sreenivasan 2023 INSC 468
[9] Ashok Sadarangani v Union of India AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 1563
[10] Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v State of Karnataka 2012 (7) SCC 407
[11] Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India 1990 AIR 273
[12] Vishakha and Ors v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 3011
[13] State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 419
