Article 142 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court extraordinary powers to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any matter pending before it. This provision allows the apex court to override existing laws or fill legal gaps to comprehensively resolve a dispute. It can be used to issue directions, enforce decrees, compel the production of documents, or even punish for contempt. A recent empirical study by IIM Ahmedabad reveals that between 1950 and 2023, the Court referenced Article 142 or the phrase “complete justice” in 1,579 cases, predominantly civil cases. Notably, the Court explicitly invoked its Article 142 powers in 791 cases.
This power has been invoked in a variety of significant cases throughout Indian history.
Landmark Cases:
Shah Bano Case (Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985): The court used Article 142 to grant maintenance to a divorced Muslim woman under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, leading to a national debate on Muslim personal law and secularism.
Bhopal Gas Tragedy Cases (Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, 1991): The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to direct Union Carbide to provide compensation to the victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, even going beyond existing legal provisions to ensure a fair outcome.
Recognition of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: While not explicitly a new law, the Supreme Court has increasingly used Article 142 to grant divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, even when it’s not a ground explicitly recognised under existing personal laws, to do complete justice to the parties involved.
In Shilpa Sailesh v Varun Sreenivasan (2023): The Supreme Court held that it can directly grant divorce on the ground of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” under Article 142, even if the other spouse opposes it. This judgment paved the way for a no-fault divorce jurisprudence, despite the ground not existing under personal laws in India.
Chandigarh Mayoral Election Case (2024): The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to overturn the results of the Chandigarh mayoral election due to evidence of tampering and declared the rightful winner.
Dalit Youth Admission to IIT Dhanbad (2024): The Supreme Court used Article 142 to ensure the admission of a Dalit youth to IIT Dhanbad after he missed the fee deadline due to circumstances beyond his control, emphasising the need for complete justice even when procedural rules are involved.
Addressing Systemic Issues and Formulating Guidelines:
Vishaka Guidelines (Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, 1997): In the absence of specific legislation, the Supreme Court used Article 142 to lay down comprehensive guidelines to protect women from sexual harassment at the workplace. These guidelines were considered law until Parliament enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Cleaning of Taj Mahal (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, various orders): The Court has continuously used Article 142 to issue directions to protect the Taj Mahal from pollution, including orders related to industrial emissions and vehicular traffic.
BCCI Reforms (Board of Control for Cricket in India case, 2016): The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to implement significant reforms in the administration of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to ensure transparency and accountability in cricket governance.
Liquor Ban on Highways (2017): The Supreme Court, using its powers under Article 142, ordered a ban on the sale of liquor within a specified distance of national and state highways to reduce drink-driving and road accidents.
Intervening in Political and Constitutional Matters:
In Prem Chand Garg 1962, the court had been called upon to examine whether the provision enabled it to pass rules that would restrict the scope of Article 32. A five-judge bench had answered in the negative. Speaking for the majority, Justice Gajendragadkar wrote that an order passed to secure complete justice “must not only be consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but cannot even be inconsistent with the substantive provisions of the relevant statutory laws.”
In Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995), a three-judge bench later held that the Prem Chand Garg. The precedent was no longer “good law”. The bench clarified that Article 142, being a constitutional power, cannot be restricted or conditioned by statutory provisions.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): While the main judgment dealt with Article 356 (President’s rule), the invocation of Article 142 allowed the Supreme Court to order floor tests in state assemblies to determine the majority, contributing to the resolution of political crises.
Complete Justice”: The phrase “complete justice” is interpreted broadly, allowing the Supreme Court flexibility to tailor its orders to the specific facts and circumstances of a case.
These above-mentioned cases demonstrate the diverse ways in which the Supreme Court has utilised Article 142 to address unique situations, protect fundamental rights, fill legal gaps, and ensure that the ends of justice are met. It remains a powerful and often debated tool in the Indian judicial landscape
Limitations: While the powers under Article 142 are wide, the Supreme Court has also recognised certain limitations. For instance, it cannot pass orders that violate fundamental rights or substantive statutory provisions. The power is meant to supplement, not supplant, existing laws.
This provision has been invoked in a recent direction by the Supreme Court concerning bills passed by the Tamil Nadu State Legislature and awaiting the Governor’s assent.
Background of the Issue:
The Tamil Nadu government had approached the Supreme Court alleging that the Governor was unduly delaying assent to several bills passed by the State Assembly. Some of these bills had been pending for a significant period, leading to a situation where the legislative will of the state was being seemingly obstructed. The Governor had also reserved some of the bills for the consideration of the President.
Exercising its powers under Article 142, the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment on April 8, 2025. The Court held that the Governor’s action of indefinitely reserving 10 bills for the President’s assent was unconstitutional. More significantly, to ensure “complete justice,” the Supreme Court deemed these bills as having been passed into law from the date they were re-presented to the Governor by the Assembly. This is an unprecedented step where the Supreme Court directly gave effect to state laws without the Governor’s or President’s assent.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court laid down specific timelines for Governors to act on bills:
*One month to act on bills if reserving for the President or withholding assent with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
*Three months if doing so without such advice.
* One month if the bill is resent after reconsideration by the Assembly.
* The Court also specified a three-month timeline for the President to decide on bills reserved by the Governor.
The Supreme Court clarified that a Governor is a nominal head bound by the advice of the elected Council of Ministers and does not have the authority to indefinitely delay or act as a parallel executive. The concept of “absolute veto” or “pocket veto” does not exist in the Indian constitutional scheme. Once a bill is re-passed by the Assembly without substantive changes, the Governor is constitutionally obligated to give assent. Reserving such a bill for the President is deemed impermissible.
Article 142 vis-à-vis the Direction to the President:
While the Supreme Court directly deemed some bills as passed using Article 142, its direction concerning bills reserved for the President sets a timeline of three months for the President to make a decision. This implicitly directs the President to consider and decide on the pending Tamil Nadu bills within this timeframe.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s invocation of Article 142 in the context of the Tamil Nadu bills has two key aspects related to the President:
* Directly enacting laws: By deeming the bills passed, the Supreme Court effectively bypassed the need for Presidential assent for those specific bills that were initially reserved by the Governor after being re-passed by the Assembly.
* Setting a timeline: The Court has directed the President to decide on bills reserved by the Governor within a period of three months, thereby introducing a time-bound element to the President’s consideration of state legislation.
Judicial Overreach Debate: The Supreme Court’s intervention, particularly the setting of a timeline for the President, has sparked some debate regarding the separation of powers. Some argue that it curtails the President’s constitutional discretion. However, the court’s rationale is rooted in ensuring the smooth functioning of the democratic process and preventing undue delays that could render the legislative will of a state ineffective. The court has also stated that if the President withholds assent after the Governor has reserved a bill, the State Government has the right to challenge this action in the Supreme Court. The frequent use of Article 142 sometimes sparks debates about judicial overreach, with concerns raised about the judiciary potentially encroaching upon the domains of the legislature and the executive.
The boundary between restraint and overreach could be blurry, and an assessment of which side the Court lands is often clouded by the analyser’s own understanding of the social and political imperatives. But as long as there are intersections between law and public life, there will be a place for the Court’s discretionary power under Article 142. And as long as the rule of law prevails, there will be calls to use it sparingly, at each time upholding the constitutional principles and respecting the separation of powers.
This situation arising in the Tamil Nadu bills case highlights the Supreme Court’s role as the guardian of the Constitution and its willingness to use its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to ensure that constitutional processes are followed and that complete justice is done in the relationship between the states and the Union.
The writer is a Law Officer at the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, J&K
Mudasir Khan
kh********@***oo.com