Article 142 Comes Under Debate

Article 142 and the Supreme Court’s Extraordinary Powers: Article 142 of the Constitution has again attracted attention after the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary powers to quash FIRs connected with nationwide protests over the alleged NEET-UG 2026 examination leak.

The case involved the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and several participants in the protests. A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, dealt with the cases during the proceedings.

The development has revived a long-running constitutional debate: how far can the Supreme Court go while using its power to ensure “complete justice”?

What Article 142 Provides

Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in a matter pending before it. This makes the provision different from many ordinary judicial powers because it gives the Court considerable flexibility when conventional legal remedies may not provide an adequate solution.

However, the Constitution does not precisely define the expression “complete justice” or provide an exhaustive list of circumstances in which the provision can be invoked.

Static GK fact: Article 142 is contained in Part V of the Constitution, which deals with the Union, including the Supreme Court.

The provision appeared in the Draft Constitution as Article 118 and was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 27 May 1949. Its interpretation has therefore developed largely through Supreme Court judgments over the decades.

The CJP Case and FIRs

In the case concerning the exam protests, the Centre informed the Court that it had consciously decided not to pursue the cases. The Supreme Court subsequently quashed nearly all the FIRs associated with the protests.

An exception was made for around 2,873 individuals described as having serious and grave criminal antecedents.

The Court also directed compensation for families of students who died by suicide in connection with the examination controversy, with the process to be completed within three months.

The manner in which multiple FIRs across different States were dealt with together has triggered questions about whether extraordinary constitutional powers can be used to bypass ordinary criminal-law procedures.

Important Uses of Article 142

Article 142 has played a significant role in several major Supreme Court decisions.

In the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case (1989), the provision was used in connection with the settlement involving Union Carbide. In the Ayodhya title dispute, the Court used its powers while resolving the long-running dispute and directed the allocation of land for both sides.

In A.G. Perarivalan’s case (2022), the Supreme Court exercised Article 142 to order his release in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

The Court has also invoked Article 142 in matters involving irretrievably broken-down marriages and other cases where it considered extraordinary relief necessary.

Static GK Tip: The Bhopal Gas Tragedy occurred on 2–3 December 1984 and involved a major gas leak from the Union Carbide India Limited plant in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.

Can Article 142 Override Existing Law?

The Supreme Court itself has recognised that Article 142 is not an unlimited power.

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 help fill legal gaps but cannot simply override an existing statutory framework.

These judgments established important boundaries around the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Concern Over Judicial Overreach

The latest controversy centres on whether a blanket quashing of numerous FIRs can replace the normal legal process.

Ordinarily, criminal cases are assessed according to the applicable provisions of criminal procedure, including Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Critics argue that treating large numbers of cases collectively may reduce the scope for individual judicial examination.

This raises a broader constitutional question: whether Article 142 should be used to fill gaps in law or whether it can also be employed to provide remedies that effectively displace established statutory procedures.

Calls for Greater Constitutional Restraint

Debate over Article 142 is not new. Former Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar had previously described the provision as a “nuclear missile” in the context of concerns about institutional boundaries.

Former Attorney General K. K. Venugopal acknowledged the provision’s significant contribution to disadvantaged sections but argued that appropriate checks and balances were necessary.

He also suggested that the power should potentially be restricted to five-judge Constitution Benches, reducing the possibility of extraordinary constitutional powers being exercised by smaller benches.

Why Article 142 Matters

Article 142 represents the Supreme Court’s ability to provide remedies where ordinary legal mechanisms may not fully address the circumstances of a case. At the same time, its broad wording makes judicial restraint and constitutional boundaries particularly important.

The CJP case has therefore revived a fundamental question in constitutional governance: how can the Supreme Court ensure complete justice without crossing the limits imposed by legislation, fundamental rights and institutional separation of powers?

Static Usthadian Current Affairs Table

Article 142 and the Supreme Court’s Extraordinary Powers: