Article 142 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court of India the authority to pass any decree or order necessary for doing “complete justice” in any cause or matter pending before it. This article has been a cornerstone in the Indian judiciary’s ability to render judgments that transcend procedural and legislative limitations, ensuring that justice is delivered in its entirety. This article delves into the significance, applications, and implications of Article 142, supported by relevant case laws.
The Text of Article 142
The text of Article 142 reads:
- The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.
- Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.
Historical Context and Purpose
The framers of the Indian Constitution envisioned Article 142 as a means to empower the Supreme Court to deliver justice unfettered by rigid procedural constraints. The article ensures that the apex court can bridge gaps in the law and address situations where legislative or executive measures fall short. The broad phrasing of “complete justice” allows the Court to craft remedies tailored to the unique circumstances of each case.
Key Case Laws and Applications
Article 142 has been invoked in numerous landmark cases, shaping the jurisprudence and demonstrating its versatility.
1. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991)
In the aftermath of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to approve a settlement between Union Carbide Corporation and the Government of India for compensation to the victims. The Court’s intervention under Article 142 ensured an expedited resolution, providing immediate relief to the affected families, albeit the decision was later met with criticism for the adequacy of the compensation.
2. Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat (1991)
This case involved the alleged assault and illegal detention of a sitting judge by the police. The Supreme Court, under Article 142, ordered a judicial inquiry and ensured protection for judicial officers, emphasizing the need to uphold the dignity and independence of the judiciary. The Court’s proactive stance in safeguarding judicial independence highlighted the protective ambit of Article 142.
3. Shri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951)
In this early case, the Supreme Court used Article 142 to reinforce its power to ensure justice. The Court’s interpretation in this case laid the groundwork for subsequent applications, affirming its authority to overrule procedural and legislative hurdles.
4. Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997)
This case, also known as the Jain Hawala Case, showcased the Court’s use of Article 142 to address corruption at high levels. The Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to act independently of political influence, ensuring an impartial investigation. The directives issued under Article 142 led to significant reforms in the functioning of the CBI.
5. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998)
In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that Article 142 does not confer power to the Court to disregard the express provisions of statutory laws. The Court observed that while Article 142 is meant to do complete justice, it cannot be used to supplant existing laws. This judgment emphasized the balance between judicial activism and adherence to statutory frameworks.
6. Arjun Gopal v. Union of India (2018)
The Supreme Court used Article 142 to impose regulations on the sale and use of fireworks to address the issue of air pollution in Delhi. The Court’s order balanced the interests of public health with the economic concerns of the fireworks industry, illustrating the broad remedial scope of Article 142.
Implications and Criticisms
While Article 142 has empowered the Supreme Court to deliver comprehensive justice, its expansive use has also attracted criticism.
Judicial Overreach
Critics argue that the broad powers under Article 142 can lead to judicial overreach, where the judiciary encroaches upon the domains of the legislature and the executive. The delicate balance of power between the branches of government is a cornerstone of democratic governance, and unchecked judicial activism can disrupt this equilibrium.
Consistency and Predictability
The discretionary nature of Article 142 means that its application can vary significantly from case to case, potentially leading to inconsistencies in the law. Predictability and stability are crucial for a fair legal system, and the ad hoc use of Article 142 can sometimes undermine these principles.
Judicial Accountability
The lack of clear guidelines on the exercise of powers under Article 142 raises concerns about judicial accountability. While the Supreme Court’s intentions are to deliver complete justice, the absence of oversight mechanisms can lead to arbitrary decisions.
Balancing Judicial Activism and Restraint
The use of Article 142 underscores the ongoing debate between judicial activism and judicial restraint. While the judiciary’s proactive role is essential in addressing gaps and ensuring justice, it must also exercise restraint to respect the boundaries set by the Constitution and the law.
Guidelines for Use
To address concerns of overreach and inconsistency, it would be prudent for the Supreme Court to develop guidelines for the application of Article 142. Such guidelines could provide a framework to ensure that the powers are exercised judiciously and consistently.
Collaboration with Legislature and Executive
The judiciary, while independent, does not operate in isolation. Collaborative efforts with the legislature and executive can ensure that the broader objectives of justice are met without overstepping institutional boundaries. Dialogue and cooperation among the branches of government can enhance the effectiveness of Article 142.
Case-by-Case Analysis
Each invocation of Article 142 should be carefully analyzed to assess its necessity and impact. The Court must weigh the benefits of immediate justice against the potential long-term implications for the legal system and governance.
Conclusion
Article 142 of the Indian Constitution remains a powerful tool for the Supreme Court to ensure complete justice. Its application in various landmark cases highlights its significance in addressing unique legal challenges and filling gaps left by legislative or procedural deficiencies. However, the use of Article 142 must be tempered with caution to prevent judicial overreach and maintain the balance of power among the branches of government.
The Supreme Court’s proactive stance in invoking Article 142 has undoubtedly contributed to the evolution of Indian jurisprudence, ensuring that justice is not hindered by procedural technicalities. Moving forward, a judicious and balanced approach in the application of Article 142 will be essential to uphold the principles of justice, fairness, and constitutional integrity.
Contributed By: Aakash Jaggia (Intern)
O. P. Jindal Global University, Jindal Global Law School.