Complete justice: Article 142 should be invoked only in truly rare cases

Mint

05-05-2025

The Supreme Court's recent invocation of Article 142 to break a legislative deadlock in Tamil Nadu has re-ignited a debate over the judiciary's role in India's constitutional framework. By deeming long-pending state bills as assented-to, the court stepped in to preserve legislative intent but at the cost, some argue, of crossing into executive territory. Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar's sharp response, comparing Article 142 to a 'nuclear missile," highlights the growing unease over judicial overreach.
Is Article 142 really such an intrusive instrument? A recent empirical study conducted by IIM Ahmedabad in 2024 reveals that between 1950 and 2023, the Supreme Court referenced the term 'complete justice' of Article 142 in 1,579 cases, the majority of which were civil cases. However, the study also found that the apex court has directly invoked its powers under Article 142 in only 791 cases.
Article 142 grants the Supreme Court the extraordinary power to pass any order deemed necessary for 'complete justice' in a matter. This provision has been pivotal in shaping some of India's landmark decisions. Notably, in
Union Carbide Corporation vs Union of India
(1991), it facilitated compensation for victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy by persuading the government to legislate the same.
The
Tamil Nadu legislative controversy
arose when the state's governor failed to act on several state bills, effectively paralysing governance. In response, the court invoked Article 142 to break the stalemate, ensuring that a legislative assembly's will could not be indefinitely thwarted. Supporters saw this as constitutional guardianship; critics, including Dhankhar, a distinguished lawyer, warned of setting a troubling precedent. His remarks raise a legitimate concern: Can two judges, invoking an extraordinary provision, reframe the constitutional process of assent?
But this tension between activism and adjudication is not new. Past instances show the Supreme Court using Article 142 to deliver practical solutions where the law was silent or rigid. A more nuanced example is
Shivshakti Sugars Ltd vs Shree Renuka Sugars and Others
(2017), closely analysed among other cases by CUTS International for the
Niti Aayog
as part of a study on the economic impact of judicial orders. The dispute centred around the setting up of a sugar mill in Karnataka that allegedly violated a mandatory 15km distance rule under the Sugarcane Control Order.
Initially, the Karnataka high court had ordered the closure of the plant based on a strict reading of the rule. But when the case reached the Supreme Court, the judges took a broader view. They recognized that Shivshakti Sugars had already invested nearly
₹
300 crores, generated thousands of jobs and had been operational for years. Shutting it down at that point would not just harm one company, it would cause a ripple effect, hurting farmers, workers and the regional economy.
Instead of going strictly by the law book, the apex court evaluated the matter in overlapping legal and economic contexts. While acknowledging that technical violations might exist, it said that the larger public interest in protecting livelihoods and investment could not be ignored. The court used Article 142 to craft a practical solution without overlooking the statutory scheme.
The Shivshakti judgment struck a delicate balance. The case showed that judicial decisions could stay faithful to the law while also being sensitive to economic consequences, a combination that is vital if India wants to strengthen its economy and ease of doing business.
Both the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and Shivshakti cases show Article 142 at work in different fields: one regulatory, the other economic. In both, the court used its powers to prevent injustice where a rigid adherence to the law or procedure would have failed. But they also highlight why restraint matters. Extraordinary powers must not become routine solutions. Judicial overreach, even if well-intended, risks upsetting the constitutional balance between the three branches of government.
Past examples reinforce this caution. Judicial interventions like the blanket ban on liquor sales near highways in the case of
State of Tamil Nadu vs K. Balu
(2016), issued under Article 142, were driven by noble aims. Alas, it triggered wide-ranging economic disruptions and administrative confusion, with states suffering major revenue losses and reclassifying roads to evade the ban. This was a poor order, as its implementability was doubtful.
To safeguard its legitimacy, the Supreme Court must always exercise Article 142 with prudence. The provision was intended as a constitutional safety valve, not a shortcut to bypass established processes. Bold interventions are sometimes necessary, but courts must always ensure they are solving a specific breakdown, not crafting permanent governance models. Remedies fashioned under Article 142 should be proportional, temporary where possible and rooted firmly in the Constitution's broader framework.
Moreover, judicial interventions should ideally nudge political and legislative processes back into motion. After the Tamil Nadu decision, for instance, Parliament could consider codifying clear timelines for assent through a constitutional amendment, reducing the need for future judicial innovation.
True constitutional leadership lies not just in doing complete justice, but in doing it with complete humility.
The authors are, respectively, secretary general and research associate at CUTS International.