CJP cases scrapped: What powers does Article 142 give the Supreme Court, and why is it controversial?
2-minute summary
The Supreme Court of India recently invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash thousands of FIRs registered against protestors belonging to the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) during the nationwide exam protests over the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant closed the cases after the Centre agreed not to pursue them, while also ordering compensation for the families of students who died by suicide. This blanket quashing has reignited the constitutional debate surrounding Article 142. While the provision enables the apex court to deliver 'complete justice' where statutory law is silent or inadequate, critics argue its frequent and expansive use bypasses established statutory procedures—such as Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for quashing FIRs—and encroaches upon the domain of the legislature and executive, thereby challenging the doctrine of separation of powers.
Why it's in the news
The Supreme Court used Article 142 to quash multiple FIRs across states against CJP exam protestors and order compensation for NEET-UG 2026 suicide victims, bringing renewed scrutiny to the scope, utility, and potential overreach of the court's discretionary powers.
Background and context
The origins of Article 142 lie in Section 210 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which was itself rooted in the colonial-era practice of resolving disputes based on 'justice, equity, and good conscience' when written law was silent. During the framing of the Indian Constitution, the provision was introduced as Draft Article 118 and was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on May 27, 1949, without any formal debate. Over the last seven decades, the Supreme Court has expanded the application of this article to deliver justice in landmark cases, including the Bhopal Gas Tragedy settlement (1989), the Ayodhya title dispute, and the release of Rajiv Gandhi assassination convict A.G. Perarivalan (2022). However, its open-ended nature has led to persistent debates regarding judicial overreach.
Constitutional provisions
- Article 142 — Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing 'complete justice' in any cause or matter pending before it, which remains enforceable throughout the territory of India.
- Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — The statutory provision governing the High Courts' inherent powers to quash FIRs based on specific judicial parameters, which was bypassed by the Supreme Court's blanket order under Article 142.
Previous UPSC questions on this theme
- Prelims GS-1 2019 — With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following? (a) The decisions taken by the Election Commission of India while discharging its duties cannot be challenged in any court of law. (b) The Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by laws made by the Parliament. (c) In the event of grave financial crisis in the country, the President of India can declare Financial Emergency without the counsel from the Cabinet. (d) State Legislatures cannot make laws on certain matters without the concurrence of Union Legislature.
Mains practice: While Article 142 of the Constitution enables the Supreme Court to deliver 'complete justice', its frequent and expansive application risks undermining the doctrine of separation of powers and statutory frameworks. Discuss.
Article 142 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to pass unique decrees or orders to ensure "complete justice" in any pending cause. Rooted in equity and good conscience, it acts as a safety valve to address legislative vacuums and prevent systemic failures.
**The Utility of Article 142 in Delivering Justice:**
• **Filling Legislative Gaps:** The court has historically used this power to secure public welfare, such as directing the $470 million Bhopal Gas Tragedy settlement (1989) and resolving the complex Ayodhya title dispute.
• **Protecting Individual Liberty:** It was invoked to release A.G. Perarivalan in 2022, demonstrating its value in protecting civil liberties when statutory remedies are exhausted.
• **Evolving Jurisprudence:** It allows the court to dissolve irretrievably broken-down marriages, providing relief where statutory personal laws are rigid.
**Concerns and Constitutional Challenges:**
• **Erosion of Separation of Powers:** The frequent use of Article 142 has drawn criticism as judicial overreach. For instance, quashing thousands of FIRs in the CJP exam protest case bypassed the statutory procedure under Section 528 of the BNSS, effectively supplanting legislative schemes.
• **Inconsistency and Lack of Predictability:** As a polyvocal court with multiple benches, subjective interpretations of "complete justice" can lead to judicial arbitrariness. In *Prem Chand Garg (1962)* and *SC Bar Association (1998)*, the SC itself ruled that Article 142 cannot override express statutory laws or fundamental rights, yet these limits are frequently ignored.
• **Institutional Friction:** Expansive rulings, such as deeming withheld state bills as assented to, have led to conflicts with executive and legislative authorities, who argue the power is used as an unchecked "nuclear missile."
**Conclusion:**
To maintain the delicate constitutional balance, the Supreme Court must practice judicial self-restraint. As suggested by legal experts, reserving the invocation of Article 142 to larger Constitution Benches of at least five judges can introduce institutional checks, ensuring this extraordinary power remains a measure of last resort rather than a tool of routine governance.
Prelims practice questions
Q1. The origin of the 'complete justice' provision under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution can be traced back to which of the following?
- Section 108 of the Government of India Act, 1919
- The Regulating Act of 1773
- The Letters Patent of the High Court of Calcutta, 1862
- Section 210 of the Government of India Act, 1935
Answer: D. The origins of Article 142 trace back to Section 210 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which allowed the Federal Court to pass orders for doing complete justice.
Q2. Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's rulings on Article 142: 1. In Prem Chand Garg v. State of UP (1962), the Supreme Court held that orders under Article 142 must be consistent with fundamental rights. 2. In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the court ruled that Article 142 can be used to entirely supplant or override existing statutory schemes. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: A. Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect because the court in the 1998 case held that Article 142 can supplement a statute to fill gaps, but it cannot supplant or override an existing statutory scheme.
Q3. Which of the following cases is NOT associated with the invocation of Article 142 by the Supreme Court of India?
- The Ayodhya land dispute verdict
- The Bhopal Gas Tragedy settlement (1989)
- The release of Rajiv Gandhi assassination convict A.G. Perarivalan
- The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
Answer: D. The Kesavananda Bharati case is famous for the 'Basic Structure Doctrine' under Article 368, whereas the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, Ayodhya dispute, and Perarivalan release all directly involved the invocation of Article 142.
Revision flashcards
- What is the core mandate of Article 142 of the Indian Constitution? It empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing 'complete justice' in any cause or matter pending before it.
- What was Article 142 called in the Draft Constitution, and when was it adopted? It was Draft Article 118, adopted by the Constituent Assembly without any debate on May 27, 1949.
- What limitation did the Supreme Court place on Article 142 in the Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) case? The court ruled that Article 142 can supplement statutory law to fill gaps, but it cannot supplant or override existing statutory schemes.
- Which statutory provision for quashing FIRs was bypassed by the Supreme Court in the CJP case? Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which outlines the statutory procedure for quashing criminal proceedings.
- What reform did former Attorney General K.K. Venugopal suggest to prevent the misuse of Article 142? He suggested that only Constitution Benches consisting of at least five judges should be permitted to invoke Article 142.