Article 142: The Supreme Power or Judicial Overreach?

Syllabus: GS2/Indian Polity & Governance

Context

• Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s recent remarks on the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, along with his accusation that the judiciary is acting like a ‘Super Parliament,’ sparked sharp criticism from opposition parties and legal experts.

About the Article 142 of Indian Constitution

• It empowers the Supreme Court to ‘pass any decree or make any order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it’.
• The intent was to allow judicial intervention in extraordinary cases where strict adherence to statute might result in injustice.
  • However, ‘complete justice’ is not defined, making the clause inherently discretionary and potent.
• Originally envisioned as an extraordinary remedy, it was meant to fill gaps where laws were silent, or justice would otherwise be denied.

Landmark Uses and Emerging Controversies

• Tamil Nadu Governor vs. State Government (2025): The Tamil Nadu Government passed 10 bills that were either withheld or not assented to by the Governor under Article 200.
  • The Supreme Court, invoking Article 142, ‘deemed the bills passed’ — effectively bypassing the constitutional process that involves the Governor/President.
• Collegium Conflict and Judicial Appointments (2015): Supreme Court of India struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), reinstating the collegium system.
  • When the Centre delayed collegium-recommended appointments, the Court threatened to use Article 142 to enforce compliance.
  • It undermines the President’s role as the constitutional appointer of judges under Article 124.
• Earlier, the Supreme Court has invoked Article 142 in cases like the Bhopal Gas Tragedy settlement, and Ayodhya verdict.

Key Concerns: Federalism at Risk?

• India’s democracy rests on a balance — Centre, States, Judiciary, and the President all play defined roles.
• But if Article 142 becomes the norm, the judiciary starts to dominate:
  • Interpreting laws;
  • Enforcing its own judgments;
  • Bypassing executive and legislative will
• It transforms the Supreme Court from an interpreter of the Constitution into a de facto super-government.

Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Overreach

• While there’s no denying the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution, its expanded use of Article 142 could amount to institutional overreach.

Balancing Judicial Authority and Governance  

• Need for Clear Guidelines: Establishing defined limits on Article 142’s application can prevent excessive judicial intervention.
• Strengthening Executive Accountability: While judicial oversight is necessary, governance decisions should remain within the constitutional framework.
• Judicial Review vs. Judicial Enforcement: Courts must ensure justice without legislating from the bench or bypassing executive authority.  

Conclusion

• Article 142 remains a powerful tool for delivering justice, but its increasing use in governance matters raises concerns about judicial overreach. 
• Striking a balance between judicial independence and executive authority is essential to uphold democratic principles.

Source: DD News