Article 142 of Indian Constitution

Context: In the backdrop of the recent Supreme Court verdict on the Tamil Nadu Governor issue, Vice-President of India has said that Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against democratic force, and that we cannot have a situation where Judiciary can direct the President of India. 

Article 142 of Indian Constitution

• Article 142 grants extraordinary powers to the Supreme Court to deliver complete justice in any matter pending before it. The provision reflects the spirit of judicial creativity and activism, enabling the apex court to transcend procedural limitations and plug legal gaps. However, such power is to be exercised cautiously and sparingly.

It empowers the Judiciary to:

• override existing laws or fill legal gaps in order to comprehensively resolve a dispute. Issue directions, enforce decrees, compel production of documents, or even punish for contempt. 
• exercise executive and legislative functions in certain scenarios, E.g., issue guidelines, directives, or orders to governmental bodies or other authorities.
• intervene in matters concerning public interest, human rights, constitutional importance, or fundamental rights, safeguarding their interests against any form of violation or infringement.

Significance of Article 142

• Bridging Legislative Gaps: When Parliament or the Executive fails to address pressing societal concerns, Article 142 empowers the judiciary to step in.
  • Vishaka guidelines (1997): In Bhanwari Devi v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court issued guidelines to combat workplace sexual harassment in the absence of statutory law. These later formed the basis of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
  • Other cases include environmental orders (E.g., cleaning of the Taj Mahal), undertrial prisoner releases, and the Union Carbide gas tragedy.
• Enhancing Democratic Values: Judiciary has used Article 142 to uphold civil liberties and protect minority rights, thereby strengthening democratic norms. E.g., Right to Privacy (2017): In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, Article 142 facilitated guidelines safeguarding individual privacy in the digital age.
• Enforcing Accountability: The provision serves as a check on arbitrary government actions. E.g.,  Coal block allocation case (2014): The SC canceled 214 out of 218 coal block allocations deemed illegal, asserting the primacy of transparent governance.
• Advancing Social Justice: Article 142 allows the Court to resolve complex legal issues involving social rights, often neglected by the executive or legislature. E.g., Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020): It settled conflicting interpretations of daughters’ rights in Hindu coparcenary property, reinforcing gender justice.
• Promoting Equality: The judiciary has challenged discriminatory practices using this article. E.g.,  In the Babita Puniya Case, The SC granted permanent commission to women officers in the Indian Army, breaking long-standing gender barriers.

Hence, it establishes Supreme Court's role as the protector of the constitution and ultimate interpreter of the law, it also acts as catalyst for judicial activism and innovation.

Concerns and Challenges in usage of Article 142

• Ambiguity in Complete Justice: The term lacks a concrete definition, giving judges significant discretionary power that may lead to subjective interpretations. The meaning of complete justice varies across cases, raising the risk of inconsistent application.
• Risk of Judicial Overreach: Frequent use of Article 142 may blur the line between judicial and legislative domains. In S.R. Bommai Case (1994), the SC's intervention in a political crisis by ordering a floor test sparked debates on the judiciary’s incursion into executive affairs.
• Weak Accountability Mechanisms: Unlike the legislature and executive, the judiciary is not easily scrutinised for its decisions under Article 142. This has raised concerns over violation of the separation of powers and democratic accountability.
• Legal Unpredictability: The discretionary use of Article 142 can result in inconsistent rulings, complicating legal compliance and strategic planning for businesses and individuals.
• Erosion of Rule of Law: By bypassing established legal procedures, Article 142 may sometimes be perceived as undermining the rule of law, particularly when its invocation contradicts statutory frameworks.

Way Forward

• Define Complete Justice: There is an urgent need to establish guiding principles or a working definition of "complete justice" to ensure consistency and reduce arbitrariness in pronouncement.
• Create institutional safeguards: Decisions under Article 142 should involve broader judicial scrutiny, ideally through referral to a Constitution Bench of at least five judges. A regulatory framework can be developed to ensure procedural fairness, including hearing all concerned parties.
• Avoid routine usage: Article 142 must remain a remedy of last resort, invoked only when no other legal mechanism suffices to achieve justice.
• Legislative follow-up: Judicial pronouncements made under Article 142 should encourage the Parliament to enact or amend laws to fill legal gaps.

Article 142 represents the constitutional commitment to a justice-oriented legal system. However, unchecked use can distort institutional boundaries and threaten democratic norms. Thus, striking the right balance between judicial discretion and institutional discipline is vital to preserving the integrity of India’s constitutional democracy.