Article 142 of the Indian Constitution

In a suo motu writ petition (2023) following a controversial Calcutta High Court judgment, the Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to withhold sentencing of a man convicted under the POCSO Act. This case presents a landmark deviation from conventional sentencing, focusing instead on the victim’s welfare, long-term rehabilitation, and systemic reform.

Article 142 of the Indian Constitution:

• Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India endows the Supreme Court with the extraordinary power to pass any decree or order as may be necessary for doing “complete justice” in any cause or matter pending before it.
• This provision empowers the Supreme Court to transcend the constraints of statutory law when the rigid application of law results in injustice.

Scope and Purpose of Article 142

• Nature of Power: Article 142 confers a discretionary, inherent power exclusively on the Supreme Court to ensure that justice is not thwarted by procedural or legislative limitations.
• Objective: The provision is intended to enable the Court to dispense substantive justice in its fullest measure, beyond mere technical compliance with the law.
• Jurisdictional Limitation: This power can be exercised only in cases that are pending adjudication before the Supreme Court.
• Judicial Restraint: While broad, this power is not unfettered and must be exercised judiciously, respecting the constitutional framework and the basic structure doctrine.

Judicial Philosophy Underlying Article 142

• Constitutional Values: Article 142 embodies the constitutional ethos of equity, fairness, and human dignity.
• Judicial Empathy: The Court’s exercise of this power reflects an awareness of social realities and victim sensitivities, highlighting a victim-centric paradigm.
• Balancing Act: It reconciles the demands of law enforcement with the imperative to prevent further harm to vulnerable parties.
• Ethical Responsibility: The Court assumes a proactive role in safeguarding justice that transcends formal legalism without overstepping constitutional bounds.

Landmark Precedents Illustrating the Use of Article 142

• Union Carbide Corporation Case
  • Utilized Article 142 to facilitate an equitable and comprehensive settlement of claims arising from the Bhopal gas tragedy.
  • Ensured that justice was delivered to the victims by overcoming procedural and statutory limitations.
• Ayodhya Verdict (2019)
  • Applied Article 142 to achieve a balanced and peaceful resolution of the long-standing Ayodhya land dispute.
  • Directed equitable distribution of disputed land rights to maintain social harmony and justice.
• POCSO Sentencing Case (2024–2025)
  • Exercised Article 142 to modify the mandatory sentencing prescribed by the POCSO Act, considering the welfare and rehabilitation of the victim.
  • Emphasized a victim-centric approach by balancing statutory mandates with humanitarian concerns.

Constitutional and Legal Significance:

• Flexibility in Justice Delivery: Article 142 provides the Supreme Court with the flexibility to address gaps and unforeseen hardships not envisaged by legislative enactments.
• Complements Legislative Framework: It acts as a constitutional safety valve to correct miscarriages of justice arising from rigid statutory interpretations.
• Safeguard Against Judicial Overreach: Despite its breadth, the power is circumscribed by principles of judicial propriety and respect for separation of powers.
• Reflection of Constitutional Morality: It promotes the overarching constitutional vision of justice, liberty, and equality, especially for marginalized and vulnerable groups.

Limitations and Safeguards

• Article 142 cannot be invoked to:
  • Contravene explicit statutory provisions or infringe upon fundamental rights.
  • Usurp the legislative or executive functions vested under the Constitution.
  • Its invocation must be justified on the grounds of necessity to achieve complete justice.
  • The power should be exercised sparingly to avoid setting unwarranted precedents and maintain judicial legitimacy.