Article 142 gives the Supreme Court a power ‘as is necessary for doing complete justice’ but its expansive use raises separation-of-powers questions. Comment.
Subtopic: Polity · Separation of Powers & Judicial Overreach
How to structure your answer
Introduction: Article 142 vests in the Supreme Court the power to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it; the same article and the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 also clothe its decree with enforceability.
Body: Three dimensions — (i) classical use — Union Carbide v. Union of India (1989) for the Bhopal settlement, Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984) for bonded labour; (ii) expanded use — Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) writing workplace-harassment guidelines, the Ayodhya verdict (2019), and the State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (April 2025) creating 'deemed assent'; (iii) the November 2025 Presidential Reference advisory pulled back from Article 142 used to manufacture executive consent.
Way forward / Conclusion: Article 142 is a residuary equity power, not a parallel legislature; the Bar Council of India v. Union of India (1981) caution against using it to override statutes is the right anchor.
Written within the word limit
143 words · target 150 words · 9 min
Introduction: Article 142 vests in the Supreme Court the power to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, with the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 underwriting enforceability through Article 129's contempt power.
Body: Three dimensions frame the separation-of-powers question. First, classical use — Union Carbide v. Union of India (1989) crafted the Bhopal settlement and Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984) addressed bonded labour. Second, expansive use — Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) wrote workplace-harassment guidelines, the Ayodhya verdict in M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (2019), and State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (April 2025) creating 'deemed assent'. Third, the November 2025 Presidential Reference advisory pulled back from manufacturing executive consent through judicial fiat.
Conclusion: Article 142 is a residuary equity power, not a parallel legislature; the Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) caution against overriding statutes is the anchor.
What an examiner expects to see
- Article 142 — complete justice
- Union Carbide v. Union of India (1989) — Bhopal settlement
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) — sexual-harassment guidelines
- Ayodhya verdict M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (2019)
- State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (April 2025)
- Presidential Reference No. 1 of 2025 advisory opinion (20 November 2025)
- Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) — Article 142 cannot override statutory provisions
Concrete cases, schemes and judgments
- Union Carbide v. Union of India (1989)
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
- M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das — Ayodhya (2019)
- State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025)
- Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998)