Introduction 

• The power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) is an inherent power and can be used for doing complete justice. 
• The object of this Article is to enable the Court to declare the law to give such directions or orders as are necessary to do complete justice. 

Article 142 of the COI 

• Article 142 of COI provides for enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery. 
• Article 142 (1) provides that 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, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.   
• Article 142 (2) provides that subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself. 
• Over the years this provision has been used for primarily used for two purposes : firstly, to do “complete justice” in a given case and secondly to fill what the Court perceives as the legislative gaps. 

Landmark Case Laws Evolving Article 142 

• Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P. (1963): 
  • A Constitution Bench was faced with a question of whether the Supreme Court could frame a rule or issue an order which would be inconsistent with any of the fundamental rights. 
  • Justice Gajendragadkar held that though powers under Article 142 are wide, this Court cannot in exercise of power under Article 142 make an order plainly inconsistent with any Constitutional provision.    
  • The Court in this case did restrictive interpretation of the provision.  
• I.C Golaknath v. State of Punjab and Another (1967): 
  • While invoking the doctrine of prospective overruling the Court held that the power under Article 142 of the COI is wide and elastic and enables this Court to formulate legal doctrines to meet the ends of justice. 
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991): 
  • The Court held that the limitations or prohibitions contained in ordinary laws cannot ipso facto act as prohibitions to exercise if powers under Article 142 of COI.  
  • The Supreme Court upheld the settlement between the Central Government and the Union Carbide and quashed all the civil and criminal proceedings against the UCC pending in any Court in order to do complete justice in the matter pending before it. 
• Delhi Judicial Services Association v. State of Gujarat  (1991): 
  • The Supreme Court held that it’s inherent power under Article 142 coupled with power under Article 32 and Article 136 gives it the power to quash proceedings before any Court to do complete justice in the matter before the Supreme Court. 
• Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998): 
  • The Supreme Court (SC) held that the plenary powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution are inherent in the Court and are complementary to those powers which are specifically conferred on the Court by various statutes though are not limited by those statutes.  
  • These powers are of very wide amplitude and are in the nature of supplementary powers 
  • This plenary jurisdiction is, thus, the residual source of power which the Supreme Court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just and equitable to do so and in particular to ensure the observance of the due process of law, to do complete justice between the parties, while administering justice according to law. 

Recent Case Laws on Article 142 of COI 

• Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023): 
  • The Court laid down the following points on Article 142 of the Coi in this case: 
    • The Court held that while exercising the powers under Article 142 the Court can depart from the procedure as well as the substantive laws as long as the decision is based on the considerations of public policy. 
    •  It was further held that the Court in exercise of it’s jurisdiction under Article 142: 
      • The Court has the discretion in view of the settlement between the parties to dissolve the marriage by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent, without being bound by the procedural requirement of moving a second motion. 
      • The Court can also in the exercise of power under Article 142 of COI quash and set aside the proceedings and orders including the criminal proceedings. 
    • The Court, in exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, has the discretion to dissolve the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown. 
  • This discretionary power is to be exercised to do ‘complete justice’ to the parties, wherein this Court is satisfied that the facts established show that the marriage has completely failed and there is no possibility that the parties will cohabit together, and continuation of the formal legal relationship is unjustified. 
• Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar v. Mrs. Paramjit Kaur Panesar @ Ajinder Kaur Panesar (2023): 
  • The Supreme Court held that a marriage can be dissolved on the ground of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ even when one of the spouses opposes the dissolution of marriage. 
  • However, the Court said that such a discretion must be exercised with great care and caution. 
• High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2024): 
  • The Court in this case laid down few important parameters which are relevant under Article 142: 
    • The jurisdiction under Article 142 is to do complete justice and it cannot be exercised to nullify the benefits derived by a large number of litigants based on judicial orders validly passed in their favour. 
    •  Article 142 does not empower this Court to ignore the substantive rights of the litigants. 
    • The Court while exercising the power under this provision can always issue procedural directions for streamlining procedural aspects but this Court cannot affect the substantive rights of those litigants who are not parties to the case before it. 
    • The power of this Court under Article 142 cannot be exercised to defeat the principles of natural justice, which are an integral part of our jurisprudence. 

Conclusion 

Article 142 is the inherent power conferred on the Supreme Court and exercised exclusively by it. The Court exercises this power for doing complete justice. This is a very important power of the Court that helps the Court to fill any void left by the Legislature.