Brief Context
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 jud
Source Content
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.