Article 142: The Supreme Court's Power to Do Complete Justice

The Supreme Court on Tuesday took the extraordinary step of quashing criminal cases registered against Gen Z protesters involved in nationwide demonstrations linked to the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) following the NEET-UG 2026 question paper leak.

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure that the FIRs are closed and will not be investigated.

What is Article 142?

Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass a decree or make an order as is necessary for doing "complete justice" in any matter pending before it. Such orders are enforceable throughout the territory of India, giving the court broad inherent powers.

How expansive is this power?

Over the years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the scope of Article 142 in several landmark judgments. In Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P. (1963), a Constitution Bench held that while the power is wide, it cannot be exercised to make an order inconsistent with a constitutional provision.

In I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), the court described the power as wide and elastic, enabling it to formulate legal doctrines to meet the ends of justice. The Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991) case took a broader view, stating that limitations in ordinary laws do not operate as constraints on this constitutional power.

In Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat (1991), the court held that Article 142, read with Articles 32 and 136, could be used to quash criminal proceedings to achieve complete justice. The Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) judgment illustrated the breadth of the power, allowing the court to depart from procedural and substantive law in appropriate cases.

What are the limits?

The Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) case established a crucial limit: Article 142 is a curative power that can supplement the law but cannot supplant substantive law. The court also noted that it cannot ordinarily disregard a statutory provision.

More recently, in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. (2024), the Constitution Bench reiterated that Article 142 must be used to do justice between parties before the court and cannot affect people who are not part of the case. It also cannot violate principles of natural justice.

While the power is vast, it is not absolute. The court has consistently held that it cannot be used to pass orders inconsistent with the Constitution or to ignore the substantive rights of litigants.