Discretionary powers of the Supreme Court:

Discretionary powers of the Supreme Court:

Article 142 of the Constitution

GS-2: Indian Constitution

(UPSC/State PSC)

Important for preliminary exam:

Chandigarh Mayor elections, AAP-Congress alliance, Article 142, Supreme Court, Ram Janmabhoomi controversy, Bhopal gas tragedy case, Right to Education (2002).

Important for Main Exam:

About Article 142, Salient features, Importance, Criticism of Article 142, Historical decisions of the Supreme Court, Conclusion.

23/02/2024

Why in news:

Recently, the Supreme Court, in exercise of its discretionary power derived from Article 142 of the Constitution, annulled the Chandigarh Mayor election result on the grounds that the Presiding Officer had deliberately invalidated eight ballot papers.

Matter related to Chandigarh Mayor Election:

  • Mayor elections were held in Chandigarh on January 30, 2024. Despite having 20 votes, the AAP-Congress alliance lost. BJP had won even with 16 votes. In fact, Presiding Officer Anil Masih had himself marked 8 votes of the AAP-Congress alliance and declared them invalid. Due to this, the Supreme Court overturned the old results. Considering 8 votes as valid, the AAP candidate was declared the winner.

About Article 142:

Concept/Assumption:

  • Article 142 was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on May 27, 1949.
  • This article is derived from the concept of justice, equity and good conscience. It was introduced in the federal courts in 1935 during the British era in India in the absence of any specific law.
  • Under Article 142, the Supreme Court can resolve disputes by using its wisdom and creativity, going beyond the strict interpretation of the law.
  • Article 142 allows the Court to pass any necessary decree or order to do "complete justice" in any case or matter pending before it.
  • This confers on the Supreme Court a unique and vast power known as "suo motu jurisdiction".

Salient features of Article 142:

  • Discretionary Power: The Court has the sole discretion to invoke Article 142, based on its understanding of "Complete Justice" in a particular case.
  • Widespread effect: It applies to any matter, irrespective of the subject matter or legal provisions involved.
  • Binding Order: Any decree or order passed under Article 142 is enforceable throughout India.

Significance of Article 142:

  • Ensuring justice beyond the law: Article 142 empowers the Court to deal with situations where existing laws and procedures lack adequate remedies.
  • Promoting social justice: The Court has used Article 142 to address issues such as prison reforms, environmental protection and the rights of marginalized communities.
  • Its call was included in landmark decisions such as the Vishakha Guidelines and the Right to Education.
  • Flexibility and adaptability: Unlike rigid laws, the Court can tailor its orders under Article 142 to specific circumstances, enabling dynamic responses to emerging situations.
  • Deterrence and enforcement: The Court's ability to act suo motu can prevent potential violations of fundamental rights and act as a powerful enforcement mechanism to maintain existing laws.

Historical decisions of the Supreme Court:

  • Irretrievable breakdown of marriage (2023): In cases where there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage, divorce is the only solution and this court can decree divorce in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
  • Rajiv Gandhi assassination case: In 2022, the Supreme Court intervened in the assassination case of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi through Article 142.
  • Ram Janmabhoomi dispute: In 2019, the Supreme Court, using Article 142, had issued an order to give 2.77 acres of land to the government to build the Ram temple.
  • Right to Education (2002): In response to widespread illiteracy and lack of access to education, the Court declared the right to free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14 as a fundamental right under Article 21, affecting millions of children.
  • Vishakha Guidelines on Sexual Harassment (1997): In the absence of specific legislation on sexual harassment at workplaces, the Court had issued these guidelines setting an important precedent outlining a framework for prevention, prohibition and redressal of sexual harassment.
  • Bhopal gas tragedy case ('Union Carbide Corporation vs. Union of India'), 1991: The Supreme Court ordered UCC to pay $470 million in compensation to the victims of the tragedy.
  • M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): In this landmark case related to environmental pollution, the Court invoked Article 142 to issue the "polluter pays" principle, holding industries liable for environmental damage.
  • Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): The Court recognized the right to shelter as a part of the right to life under Article 21, ordered the rehabilitation of slum dwellers facing eviction, marking a shift towards protecting informal settlements.
  • Sheela Barse vs. Maharashtra (1983): Considering prison conditions and lack of basic facilities, the Court laid down minimum standards for prison reforms with an emphasis on humane treatment of prisoners.

Criticism of Article 142:

  • Arbitrary treatment: It is argued by legal experts that the Court has wide discretion, and this may lead to its arbitrary use or misuse.
  • Ambiguity: Defining “complete justice” is a subjective exercise whose interpretation varies from case to case. Thus, the Court will have to impose scrutiny on itself.
  • Lack of Accountability: Another criticism of the powers under Article 142 is that unlike the legislature and the executive, the judiciary cannot be held accountable for its actions.
  • Judicial overreach: Critics argue that the broad power given by Article 142 may lead the Court to overstep its limits by intruding into the domain of the legislature and the executive and thereby violate the separation of powers principle.

Supreme Court's views on criticism:

  • Prem Chand Garg case (1962): The Supreme Court held that the order to render complete justice must be in consonance with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the substantive provisions of the relevant statutory laws.
  • Supreme Court Bar Association vs Union of India 1998: In the case 'Supreme Court Bar Association vs Union of India' in 1998, the Supreme Court held that the powers under Article 142 are supplementary in nature and cannot be used to alter or abolish any substantive law. The Supreme Court held that the powers conferred by Article 142 are changeable and cannot be construed as powers which authorize the Court to ignore the fundamental rights of the plaintiff while dealing with the case pending before it.

Conclusion:

  • Article 142 represents a powerful tool for the Supreme Court to ensure justice and address social challenges. However, concerns regarding its potential for misuse and overreach require judicial restraint.

Source: Indian Express

----------------------------------------

Mains Exam Question:

Critically examine Article 142, underscoring its significance.