The Supreme Court of India stands at the apex of the country’s judicial hierarchy, entrusted with the duty of upholding the Constitution and ensuring that justice prevails over procedural technicalities. Among the many tools conferred on it by the Constitution, Article 142 is one of the most distinctive. It authorizes the Court to pass such decree or make such order as may be necessary to do “complete justice” in any matter before it.
Complementing this extraordinary jurisdiction is the Court’s power to review its own judgments, derived primarily from Article 137. Together, Articles 142 and 137 create a framework that enables the Court to correct its own errors, recall or modify orders, and craft equitable remedies, even in areas where legislation may be silent or inadequate.
The combined application of these powers has made Article 142 a cornerstone in the Supreme Court’s pursuit of justice, while simultaneously sparking debates about judicial overreach and the boundaries of constitutional authority.
Scope of Article 142 of the Indian Constitution
Article 142(2) provides that the Supreme Court may make any order to secure attendance of persons, production of documents, or investigation as necessary for its proceedings.
Wide Amplitude – The language “complete justice” is deliberately broad, allowing the Court to mould relief in a manner not restricted by procedural laws.
Supplementary Nature – Article 142 does not create new substantive rights; rather, it supplements existing law to bridge gaps where justice might otherwise fail.
Enforceability – Orders passed under Article 142 have binding force across India, giving them the same authority as legislation or decrees.
The Power to Review Judgments: Article 137 and Supreme Court Rules
While Article 142 deals with the content of relief, the jurisdiction to reopen or reconsider an earlier decision flows from Article 137:
“Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.”
The procedural framework is elaborated in Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which prescribes grounds and procedure for review petitions. Review is a narrow remedy, confined to:
- discovery of new and important evidence unavailable despite due diligence;
- error apparent on the face of the record; or
- any other sufficient reason of similar gravity.
The finality of judgments remains the norm; review is an exception employed to avert miscarriage of justice.
Interrelationship Between Articles 142 and 137
Article 137 grants the jurisdiction to review, whereas Article 142 equips the Court with a flexible remedial power once review or recall is warranted. In practice, the Court may first determine, under Article 137, whether grounds for review exist. If satisfied, it may then employ Article 142 to frame appropriate consequential directions so that the parties are restored, as far as possible, to the position they ought to have occupied but for the error.
This symbiosis ensures that the corrective jurisdiction is not rendered sterile by procedural constraints.
Landmark Decisions
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak
A seven-judge Bench acknowledged that its prior directions compelling the accused to be tried by the High Court had deprived him of statutory safeguards. Holding that “no man should suffer because of an act of the Court,” it recalled its earlier order. The case illustrates how Article 142 enables the Court to retract an order that inadvertently causes injustice.
Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India
In the aftermath of the Bhopal gas disaster, the Supreme Court, invoking Article 142, directed payment of compensation to victims and quashed criminal proceedings. Upon review, the Court partly modified its order, restoring criminal liability. The episode highlighted that Article 142 cannot be used to supplant substantive law and remains subject to review if justice so demands.
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India
Here, the Court held that its power under Article 142 does not permit it to contravene express statutory provisions. The suspension of an advocate’s licence is entrusted by law to the Bar Council, not to the Supreme Court acting under Article 142. The decision reaffirmed that the provision supplements, rather than overrides, substantive law.
Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra
The Court evolved the curative petition, a unique mechanism to prevent gross miscarriage of justice even after dismissal of a review petition. Relief may be granted if:
- principles of natural justice were violated (e.g., a party was not heard);
- a judge was biased; or
- the decision occasioned manifest injustice.
Curative jurisdiction underscores the Court’s commitment to substantive fairness.
Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. Supreme Court of India
In death-penalty matters, the Court ruled that review petitions must be heard in open court to safeguard procedural fairness, given the irreversible nature of the sentence. This judgment expands the procedural dimension of review where the stakes are life and liberty.
Limits and Self-Imposed Restraints
Despite the breadth of Article 142, the Supreme Court has consistently emphasised self-discipline:
- The provision cannot be deployed to contravene substantive law (Supreme Court Bar Association).
- Orders must be based on discernible legal principles to avoid arbitrariness.
- Review is not an appeal; it is available only to correct patent errors or injustice, not to reconsider findings on merits.
- The curative petition is confined to the “rarest of rare” cases, safeguarding finality while keeping a safety valve for exceptional situations.
Conclusion
Article 142 represents a constitutional recognition that rigid adherence to procedure cannot be allowed to thwart substantive justice. Coupled with the review power under Article 137, it equips the Supreme Court with an exceptional remedial jurisdiction, enabling correction of its own mistakes and fashioning of equitable solutions in complex situations.
Nevertheless, the potency of this power carries corresponding responsibility. Judicial statesmanship requires that Article 142 and the power of review be exercised within principled limits, striking a balance between justice and certainty, and respecting the domain of other constitutional organs. When employed with restraint and clarity, these provisions ensure that the Court remains, in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s words, the “guardian of the Constitution and the rights of the people,” while preserving the stability of the legal order.
