Idea of Complete Justice
- Derived from Article 142, allowing the Supreme Court to craft equitable remedies when strict legal procedures fall short.
- It lets the Court interpret and apply laws in light of constitutional values, evolving social realities, and broader notions of fairness.
- Used to bridge legislative gaps and prevent injustice where no adequate legal framework exists.
Scope of Article 142
- Authorises the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to secure complete justice in matters before it.
- Allows issuance of guidelines or directions in areas lacking clear legislation.
- Empowers intervention in matters involving public interest, human rights, and constitutional protections.
- Strengthens the Court’s position as the guardian of the Constitution and key driver of judicial innovation.
Positive Impacts
- Addresses legislative vacuum:
- Vishaka guidelines (1997) leading to the POSH Act, 2013.
- Protects rights and democratic values:
- Privacy judgment (K.S. Puttaswamy, 2017).
- Ensures accountability and transparency:
- Cancellation of illegal coal block allocations (2014).
- Advances gender justice:
- Permanent commission to women officers (Babita Puniya case).
- Resolves conflicting judicial precedents:
- Vineeta Sharma (2020) on daughters’ coparcenary rights.
- Supports social and environmental justice:
- Orders on undertrial release, Taj Mahal preservation, Bhopal disaster follow-up.
Concerns
- Subjective interpretation: “Complete justice” lacks a fixed definition, enabling wide discretion.
- Risk of judicial overreach: May blur boundaries between judiciary, legislature, and executive.
- Limited accountability: Orders cannot be easily questioned or reviewed like executive decisions.
- Inconsistent application: Different benches may use Article 142 differently, creating uncertainty.
- Potential conflict with separation of powers: Seen in instances like S.R. Bommai, where judicial directions overlapped executive authority.
Article 142: Supreme Court’s Power to Ensure Complete Justice
