Q. “Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to ensure 'complete justice', but its wide ambit sparking debates on judicial overreach”. Discuss the constitutional relevance of Article 142 and analyse its impact on institutional balance among the organs of government.

Introduction:
Article 142 serves as a constitutional mechanism to bridge legal gaps and uphold fairness. The recent case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Union of India reaffirmed its significance, highlighting the Court’s ability to intervene decisively to protect constitutional principles when legislative or executive action falls short.

Body:
Constitutional Relevance and Judicial Role of Article 142

-Extraordinary and Discretionary Power
-Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order or decree necessary for complete justice in matters before it—making it a unique and discretionary tool exclusive to the apex court.

-Purpose: Ensuring Justice Beyond Technicalities
-It enables the Court to fill legislative gaps, override procedural limitations, and interpret or mould laws where required, to uphold constitutional values, fundamental rights, and public welfare.

-Vision of the Framers
-Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and the Constituent Assembly intentionally vested this power solely in the Supreme Court, recognizing the need for an institution capable of delivering justice when legislative and executive avenues fall short.

-Evolving Jurisprudence with Restraint
-Over 50+ years, the Supreme Court has evolved Article 142 jurisprudence while largely observing self-imposed limits to avoid disturbing institutional balance.

-Pillar of Constitutional Guardianship
-Article 142 reinforces the Court’s role as the guardian of the Constitution, enabling interventions in cases of public interest, human rights violations, or democratic crises, especially when legislative or executive action is inadequate.

Complete Justice under Article-142:
-Bridging Legal and Constitutional Gaps
-Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to act where laws are silent or inadequate, ensuring procedural completeness.

2. Upholding Fundamental Rights and Constitutional Morality
a. It empowers the Court to defend dignity, privacy, and equality, especially where legislation lags behind social change.
b. Example: In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), Article 142 was invoked to decriminalize homosexuality and reinforce the right to dignity under Article 21.

3. Delivering Justice Beyond Legal Technicalities
a. When strict adherence to procedural law obstructs justice, Article 142 allows substantive fairness.
b. Example: In Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India (2024), the Court cancelled remission orders for rape convicts, upholding victim-centric justice beyond procedural loopholes.

4. Ensuring Relief in Mass Disaster Cases
-In the Bhopal gas tragedy case (1991), the Court used Article 142 to order a $470 million compensation, ensuring timely justice beyond statutory procedures.

Challenges to Separation of Powers under Article 142:
-Judicial Overreach
a. Excessive reliance on Article 142 often blurs the lines between judiciary, legislature, and executive.
b. Example: In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court directed a floor test in Karnataka's Assembly—protecting federalism but also raising concerns of judicial intrusion into executive functions.

-Subjectivity in Defining “Complete Justice”
-The absence of a clear framework makes “complete justice” a subjective and evolving standard, leading to inconsistency and legal uncertainty.
Varying rulings on issues like reservation policy or economic interventions reflect this ambiguity.

-Encroachment on Legislative Domain
-When the Court issues guidelines in the absence of legislation, such as in the Vishaka case (1997), it risks undermining the law-making role of Parliament. Moreover, judicial decisions under Article 142 are not subject to legislative scrutiny, unlike executive or parliamentary actions.

-Erosion of Institutional Balance
-Frequent judicial intervention in policymaking fosters executive and legislative dependency on the judiciary, weakening the institutional autonomy and effectiveness of other branches.

Way Forward:
-Clarify “Complete Justice”
-Define the scope of Article 142 through guidelines to reduce subjective interpretation.

-Ensure Institutional Balance
-Judiciary should show restraint in legislative and executive domains, intervening only in constitutional or rights violations.

-Enhance Judicial Accountability
-Require well-reasoned orders and periodic review to maintain checks and transparency.

-Reduce Overdependence
-Legislature and executive must address policy gaps to limit reliance on judicial directions.

Conclusion:
Article 142 has played a crucial role in advancing democracy and social justice through judicial activism. Yet, excessive use may compromise the principle of separation of powers. A balanced and restrained approach, coupled with cooperation among the three organs, is essential to uphold constitutional harmony and reinforce democratic governance.