Where Compassion Meets Constitutional Power
In the intricate tapestry of India’s constitutional framework, one provision shines with quiet authority: Article 142. This remarkable clause grants the Supreme Court the power to issue any decree or order necessary to deliver “complete justice” in any matter before it. It’s not a rigid directive bound by the rulebook but a compassionate tool, allowing the judiciary to step in where laws falter, ensuring fairness prevails. Think of it as the Court’s way of saying, “When the path to justice is tangled, we’ll find a way through.” With a blend of empathy and authority, Article 142 has shaped India’s legal landscape, balancing human needs with constitutional ideals.
The Heart of Article 142
Article 142(1) of the Constitution 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…”
In plain terms, it empowers the Court to prioritize fairness over legal technicalities, giving judges the flexibility to craft solutions that align with justice’s broader spirit. From 1950 to 2023, this provision has been referenced in over 1,500 judgments, with approximately 800 cases placing Article 142 at the core of the decision. It’s a quiet force, stepping in to resolve disputes with wisdom when the letter of the law falls short.
A Legacy of Compassionate Interventions
Article 142 has often served as a gentle guide, weaving fairness into complex human stories. Its interventions reflect a deep understanding of societal needs, as seen in these landmark cases:
Shah Bano Case (1985): In a deeply sensitive matter, the Court granted alimony to Shah Bano, a divorced Muslim woman, transcending the boundaries of traditional personal laws. The ruling sparked a nationwide debate on gender justice and religious customs, prompting Parliament to enact the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which softened the verdict’s impact. Yet, Article 142’s role was clear: it prioritized a woman’s dignity over legal constraints.
Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1991): The 1984 disaster left thousands devastated, and justice seemed elusive. Using Article 142, the Court directed Union Carbide to pay $470 million in compensation, bypassing procedural delays to ensure victims received relief. It was a moment where human suffering trumped legal formalities.
Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage (2023):
Recognizing the emotional toll of broken marriages, the Court invoked Article 142 to grant divorces based on irretrievable breakdown—a ground not explicitly recognized in statutory law. It was a compassionate acknowledgment that sometimes, justice lies in letting go.
Chandigarh Mayoral Polls (2024): When electoral irregularities threatened democratic fairness, the Court nullified a rigged result and declared the rightful winner. Article 142 ensured that the people’s voice, not manipulation, prevailed.
IIT Admission Case (2024): A Dalit student missed an admission fee deadline due to bureaucratic hurdles. The Court, wielding Article 142, ordered his admission, proving that justice sometimes means bending rules to uphold opportunity and equity.
Filling Gaps with Vision
Article 142 doesn’t just resolve disputes—it bridges gaps where laws are absent or inadequate. In 1997, the Vishaka Guidelines emerged as a landmark response to workplace sexual harassment, a pressing issue with no legislative framework at the time. The Court crafted actionable directives, mandating employers to ensure safe workplaces until Parliament passed the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act in 2013. Similarly, when pollution threatened the Taj Mahal’s marble grandeur, the Court invoked Article 142 to enforce environmental safeguards, preserving a cultural icon for future generations.
In 2016, the Court turned its gaze to Indian cricket, using Article 142 to overhaul the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). By implementing the Lodha Committee’s reforms, it brought transparency to a sport beloved by millions. In 2017, it imposed a liquor ban near highways to curb road accidents—a decision rooted in public welfare, even if the evidence sparked debate. These moments highlight Article 142’s ability to act as a catalyst for change when urgency demands it.
A Delicate Dance with Governance
Article 142 has occasionally ventured into the political arena, balancing judicial wisdom with constitutional boundaries. In Prem Chand Garg (1962), the Court humbly acknowledged that Article 142 couldn’t override fundamental rights, setting a tone of restraint. Yet, by 1995’s Vinay Mishra case, it asserted that statutes could be sidelined if justice required—a bold shift in perspective. The S.R. Bommai case (1994) saw the Court mandate floor tests in state assemblies, reinforcing federal balance and democratic accountability. These rulings reflect Article 142’s evolving role as a guardian of constitutional harmony.
The Tamil Nadu Bills Saga (2025)
On April 8, 2025, Article 142 took center stage in a constitutional drama. Ten bills, re-passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly, were stalled by the Governor, caught in a prolonged delay. With calm resolve, the Supreme Court declared them law, invoking Article 142 to ensure legislative intent wasn’t thwarted. To prevent future bottlenecks, the Court set clear timelines:
– Governors must act on ministerial advice within one month.
– Without advice, a three-month window applies.
– Re-passed bills get a one-month deadline.
– Bills reserved for the President must be addressed within three months.
In a historic move, the Court extended this framework to the President, ensuring even the highest office adheres to timely action. Constitutional scholars were abuzz, while the public, perhaps unaware, benefited from a judiciary committed to keeping governance on track.
Balancing Duty and Restraint
Critics gently argue that Article 142 risks blurring the lines of separation of powers, casting the judiciary as a quasi-legislator. Supporters counter that it’s a vital safety valve, stepping in when legislative or executive inaction stalls justice. In a democracy where delays or disputes can erode trust, Article 142 serves as a steady hand, guiding the system toward fairness with empathy and precision.
A Quiet Guardian of Justice:
Article 142 is neither a blunt instrument nor a magical fix—it’s a tool of compassion, wielded with care. As Toni Morrison wrote, “The function of freedom is to free someone else.” Article 142 embodies this spirit, freeing justice from procedural constraints. Whether it’s securing a student’s future, preserving a monument, or upholding legislative will, it ensures fairness prevails.
In India’s vibrant democracy, where laws and lives intertwine, Article 142 stands as a quiet guardian. It doesn’t seek to dominate but to serve, reminding us that justice, at its core, is about understanding, fairness, and the courage to act when it matters most.
