Last Updated: 11 May 2026
The Supreme Court’s use of Article 142 — “complete justice” — has surged in 2025-26, with the Court invoking it 47 times in the last 12 months alone, more than in any comparable period since 2010. For CLAT 2027, Article 142 has become a frequent feature in Legal Reasoning passages: the recent Bilkis Bano, Chandigarh Mayor Election, and Tamil Nadu Bills rulings have all turned on the contours of this extraordinary power.
Article 142 — The Bare Text
The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it…
2025-26 Landmark Rulings Using Article 142
| Case | Date | Use of Article 142 |
|---|---|---|
| Bilkis Bano v. UoI | Jan 2024 | Quashed Gujarat remission orders; restored 11 convicts to custody |
| Chandigarh Mayor Election | Feb 2024 | Declared opposition candidate elected; overrode Returning Officer’s vote-defacement |
| State of TN v. Governor | Apr 2025 | Deemed 10 Bills ‘as having received assent’ after 14-month gubernatorial inaction |
| EWS Reservation Review | Sep 2025 | Modified earlier holding to mandate periodic re-evaluation |
| Delhi Excise Policy | Mar 2026 | Granted interim bail to former CM, fixing conditions despite no statutory remedy |
The TN Governor Case (April 2025) — The Most Cited Precedent
In State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, a two-judge Bench (J. Pardiwala and Mahadevan) deemed Bills passed by the TN Assembly ‘as having received assent’ after the Governor sat on them for over 14 months. The Court invoked Article 142 because Article 200 contains no time-limit, and the Governor’s inaction created a constitutional vacuum no other remedy could fill.
Limits the Court Itself Has Recognised
- Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. UoI (1998) — Article 142 cannot be used to override express statutory provisions or contradict substantive law.
- State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) — Cannot regularise illegal employment under the cover of complete justice.
- Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner (1963) — The Court’s order must be consistent with fundamental rights.
The Vice-President’s Recent Critique
In April 2025, the then Vice-President called Article 142 a ‘nuclear missile against democratic forces’ — a comment that triggered fresh debate on judicial overreach. CLAT passages may now juxtapose this critique against the Kesavananda Bharati basic structure doctrine and the separation-of-powers principle in Asif Hameed v. State of J&K (1989).
How CLAT 2027 Will Test This
- A passage describing a recent Article 142 invocation followed by Legal-Reasoning style questions.
- Constitutional-law MCQs pairing Article 142 with Article 141 (binding precedent) and Article 144 (aid in execution).
- Comparison questions: Article 142 (SC) vs Article 226 (HC) vs Article 32 (writs).
Internal Links
FAQ
Is Article 142 binding on lower courts?
The order itself is binding under Article 144, but the ratio is governed by Article 141 — the legal proposition behind the Article 142 order is precedent.
Can the Supreme Court use Article 142 to legislate?
No — see SCBA v. UoI (1998). Article 142 fills gaps for complete justice but cannot substitute legislative action.
What’s the difference between Article 142 and Article 32?
Article 32 is the remedy by which the Supreme Court enforces fundamental rights; Article 142 is the residual power to ensure complete justice once jurisdiction is properly invoked.
Practice Quiz
Quiz data empty after normalization.
