New Delhi: In at least half a dozen instances over the past five years, the Supreme Court has exercised its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, from settling matrimonial disputes and quashing criminal cases under POCSO or SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to laying down a timeframe for a Governor to act on Bills, and overturning its own judgement.
Earlier this week, the top court invoked Article 142 to quash 14 FIRs registered during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests between 20 and 25 July, besides directing the central government to pay compensation within three months to next of kin of NEET aspirants who died by suicide after the leak and subsequent cancellation of the 2026 NEET (UG) question paper.
Article 142 clause (1) confers on the Supreme Court an inherent power to pass any order to do complete justice in any matter before it. Clause (2) grants it the power to pass any order to secure attendance of any person, ensure discovery/production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.
Cases against those who took part in the CJP protests were quashed after the government moved an application in this regard. Against this backdrop, ThePrint looks at some instances of the apex court exercising its power under Article 142.
POCSO conviction set aside
Invoking its extraordinary power, the Supreme Court had in June set aside the conviction of a Tamil Nadu resident in a POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act case. The court noted that the complainant, a minor at the time of the incident, married the man when she turned 18. In its judgement, the court observed that the complainant and the man had intimate relations when she was a student of Class 12, and she filed a complaint after he refused to marry her.
Taking into account the complainant’s affidavit stating that they had been living together for the past four years and confirmation of a settlement between them, including payment of Rs 10 lakh towards her security, the court quashed the criminal proceedings against the man. However, the Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar made clear that the order would not be treated as precedent since their decision was subject to “peculiar facts of the case”.
Dissolution of marriage
In April, the court found a matrimonial dispute to be a “fit case for exercise of powers under Article 142(1) to grant a divorce as there had been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage”.
Before the court was a dispute arising over the terms of settlement agreed upon by a married couple under which the husband had promised to pay a total sum of Rs 1.5 crore to the wife, along with funds for purchasing a car and return of jewellery supposedly brought by her into the marriage.
However, the wife pulled out of the divorce proceedings, arguing that she consented to the settlement and consequent divorce only after the husband assured her that he would return her jewellery worth Rs 120 crore and gold biscuits worth Rs 50 crore—a claim the husband denied before the court.
The husband had moved a contempt petition before the higher court, accusing the wife of dishonouring the agreed-upon terms of settlement. The wife responded by filing a case against the husband and his mother under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Delhi HC refused to quash the case but asked the wife to return Rs 89 lakh received as settlement, prompting the husband to approach the apex court.
In April, the Supreme Court observed that the couple had already been living separately since 2022-23 and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act appeared to be “premeditated” to sustain cases against the husband and in-laws.
The Bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi examined the husband’s application under Article 142, urging it to allow a divorce.
“In such a case, when there is no scope of parties peacefully co-existing together, we see no point in continuation of any sorts of litigation in between the parties arising solely out of the matrimonial discord,” said the Bench.
Also Read: SC convicted POCSO accused, then set him free—it factored in lived realities & systemic failures
Quashing case under SC/ST Act
In October 2021, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary power under Article 142 in dealing with a plea seeking quashing of a criminal case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The three-judge Bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli was hearing an appeal by one Ramawatar from Madhya Pradesh’s Panna, who was convicted under the SC/ST Act following an altercation with his neighbour over construction activity in June 1994. The dispute arose when Ramawatar and brother Katulal broke down a wall to make a door opening into neighbour Prembai’s house, leading to a scuffle and Ramawatar throwing a brick at Prembai. The brothers were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. However, both parties later reached a settlement.
Urging the court to quash the criminal proceedings against and his brother, Ramawatar argued before the court that they were residents of the same village and wanted to maintain a cordial relationship. This prompted the Bench to engage in deep deliberation over the scope of its extraordinary power.
The court was faced with two questions: whether the power under Article 142 can be invoked for quashing criminal proceedings in a ‘non-compoundable offence’; and if so, whether such power could be extended to offences arising under special statutes such as the SC/ST Act.
Then CJI N.V. Ramana and the current Chief Justice Surya Kant drew on observations made in another case decided under Article 142 in September that year and answered both questions in the affirmative, quashing the criminal case.
The court observed that the nature and fashion of the compromise has to be carefully examined before forming it as the basis for quashing the case, as unscrupulous offenders may attempt to escape criminal liabilities by securing a compromise through brute force, threats, bribes, or other unethical and illegal means.
The court, therefore, added a caveat that the extraordinary power under Article 142 should be exercised only in post-conviction proceedings when an appeal is pending before any judicial forum, and that any settlement reached after exhaustion of all legal remedies would be impermissible.
“This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is subjudice before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sine qua non to involve the superior court’s plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible,” the Bench observed.
It added, “Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extraordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollowhearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s).”
On the second question, the court observed that despite the extraordinary power under Article 142 being “wide and far-reaching”, it cannot be exercised in a “vacuum”.
“True it is that ordinary statutes or any restrictions contained therein, cannot be constructed as a limitation on the Court’s power to do ‘complete justice’. However, this is not to say that this Court can altogether ignore the statutory provisions or other express prohibitions in law. In fact, the Court is obligated to take note of the relevant laws and will have to regulate the use of its power and discretion accordingly,” the court observed.
Timelines for Governor
Deciding a petition filed by the then DMK-led Tamil Nadu government, the Supreme Court had, in April last year, laid down timelines within which the Governor of a state must decide on Bills passed by the state legislature.
The court declared the action of then Governor R.N. Ravi in withholding assent for 10 bills—the oldest pending since as far back as January 2020—and referring them to the President after they were re-enacted by the state legislature, as “illegal and erroneous”.
In this case, too, the court used its extraordinary power under Article 142 to observe that a Governor does not have a veto or absolute power to sit on Bills passed by a state legislature. This power is derived from Article 200 of the Constitution, which contains only three options for the Governor when he/she receives a Bill for approval from the state Assembly.
“We are not exercising our power under Article 142 in a casual manner, or without giving a thought to it. On the contrary, it is only after deepest of deliberations, and having reached at the firm conclusion that the actions of the Governor—first in exhibiting prolonged inaction over the bills; secondly in declaring a simpliciter withholding of assent and returning the Bills without a message; and thirdly in reserving the Bills for the President in the second round—were all in clear violation of the procedure envisaged under the Constitution, that we have decided to declare the deeming of assent to the ten bills, considering it to be our constitutionally bounden duty,” a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan observed.
‘In our view, that is the only way to ensure that complete justice is done with the parties without any delay, and without possibility of any further delay due to any inaction on the part of the Governor, or lack of deference on his part to this judgement,” read the judgement, which ran into more than 400 pages.
Reversing own judgement
Invoking its extraordinary power under Article 142, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court had in April 2024 reversed the judgment of a two-judge Bench.
The two-judge Bench had overturned the order of the arbitral tribunal ordering Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to pay Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL), a subsidiary of Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, around Rs 3,500 crore over a dispute over the Airport Express Line.
Hearing a challenge by DRMC, the Delhi High Court in 2009 set aside the tribunal order, prompting DAMEPL to move the Supreme Court. The apex court in 2021 overturned the High Court order and upheld the payment to DAMEPL.
DMRC then moved a curative petition seeking reconsideration of the judgement.
The three-judge Bench led by the then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, while setting aside the earlier order and granting relief to DMRC, ruled that the judgement by the two-judge Bench caused “miscarriage of justice”.
“The findings of the Division Bench were borne out from the record and were not based on a misappreciation of law or fact. This Court failed, while entertaining the Special Leave Petition under Article 136, to justify its interference with the well-considered decision of the Division Bench of the High Court. The decision of this Court fails to adduce any justification bearing on any flaws in the manner of exercise of jurisdiction by the Division Bench under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act,” read the judgement.
Adding, “By setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench, this Court restored a patently illegal award which saddled a public utility with an exorbitant liability. This has caused a grave miscarriage of justice, which warrants the exercise of the power under Article 142 in a Curative petition.”
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: SC invoked Article 142 to order formation of trust for Ram Mandir. Here’s what it means