Bar Council of India Notice

Disclaimer & Confirmation

As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, an advocate is not permitted to solicit work or advertise. By clicking “I Agree” below, you acknowledge and confirm that:

you are seeking information about Advocate Manish Jha of your own accord and for your own information and use; there has been no advertisement, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any kind whatsoever from Advocate Manish Jha or the chamber to solicit any work through this website; the information made available here is provided only on your specific request; and no information on this website is to be construed as legal advice, nor does its use create any advocate-client relationship.

⚖  E-397, 4th Floor, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi – 110027 Mon–Sat  ·  +91 98738 50301  ·  legal@advocatemanishjha.com
Advocate Manish Jha Criminal · Civil · Family Law — New Delhi ☎  Consult the Chamber
Home › Article 142 — Complete Justice
Explainer · Supreme Court Practice

The Power to Do Complete Justice: Article 142 in Supreme Court Practice

Article 142 lets the Supreme Court pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in a cause before it. In special leave practice it is the hinge on which settlements, dissolved marriages, moulded reliefs and procedural rescues turn — within limits the Court itself has drawn.

Every so often a Supreme Court order does something no statute expressly authorises — dissolves a marriage without the statutory ground being proved, terminates proceedings a lower court could not have terminated, moulds relief across parties and forums in a single stroke. The source is Article 142(1) of the Constitution: in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. Understanding when that power is invoked — and when the Court refuses to invoke it — is part of the working knowledge of special leave practice.

Where the power sits in the constitutional scheme

Article 142 belongs to the cluster of provisions that make the Supreme Court not merely a final appellate court but a court of complete relief. Article 136 gets the cause before the Court; Article 141 makes its law binding; Article 144 obliges all authorities to act in its aid; and Article 142 ensures that, once seized, the Court is not forced to send parties away with fragmentary justice because some technical or procedural gap stands between the record and the right result.

Two structural features follow from the text. The power is ancillary — it rides on a pending cause or matter, never substitutes for one. And it is discretionary in the deepest sense — "necessary for doing complete justice" is a standard the Court applies to the whole situation before it, which is why outcomes under Article 142 are expressly poor precedent: what complete justice required between these parties is not a rule for others.

The familiar theatres of Article 142

TheatreWhat the power achieves
Comprehensive settlementsOne order closing the web of cross-litigation — matrimonial cases, criminal complaints, execution proceedings — that a settlement between parties spans, including proceedings not directly before the Court.
Matrimonial finalityDissolution of marriages that have irretrievably broken down, typically as part of settled terms, where relegating parties to the statutory process would prolong a dead marriage.
Preventing abuse of processTermination or transfer of proceedings, moulding of interim arrangements, and directions that no ordinary appellate order could carry.
Curing procedural dead-endsCondonation, restoration and regularisation where rigid procedure would defeat substantive justice already apparent on the record.
Institutional directionsStructural orders in causes involving systemic failures — always anchored to the pending matter, and increasingly accompanied by the Court's own reminders of restraint.

The limits the Court has drawn on itself

The jurisprudence of Article 142 is as much about restraint as reach. Three limiting themes recur across the case law. First, the power supplements the law; it is not a licence to ignore express statutory provisions, and invocations that would override a statutory prohibition or a mandatory scheme are declined. Second, complete justice is justice according to law — the article is not a jurisdiction of sympathy, and it cannot be used to confer benefits the legal framework denies. Third, the power belongs to the Supreme Court alone: High Courts and tribunals possess their own (narrower) inherent powers, but Article 142 arguments cannot be transplanted into forums below.

Invoke it in aid, not in chief

The SLP's foundation remains the Article 136 challenge; Article 142 is prayed in aid for the relief architecture — the closing of connected proceedings, the moulded terms.

Bring the whole dispute

Complete justice requires the complete picture: disclose every connected proceeding, party and undertaking, since the order sought will sweep across them.

Draft the terms

Where settlement is the object, place agreed terms on affidavit with precision — Article 142 orders are enforceable across India, and loose terms become tomorrow's contempt and clarification applications.

Practice note: For litigants whose matters reach the Supreme Court from Delhi's courts, the realistic significance of Article 142 is at the settlement and relief stage — it is what allows one hearing to end five proceedings. Counsel should treat it accordingly: not as a merits argument, but as the engineering that makes a negotiated or equitable outcome legally airtight once the Court is persuaded on the substance.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does Article 142 actually say?

Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, such decree or order being enforceable throughout the territory of India in the manner prescribed. Article 142(2) supplements it with powers regarding attendance, discovery and punishment of contempt.

Is Article 142 an independent source of jurisdiction?

No. It operates in a cause or matter already pending before the Court — it supplements jurisdiction properly invoked (for instance under Article 136); it does not create a freestanding right to approach the Court for "complete justice". A party cannot file a petition under Article 142 as such.

Can Article 142 override statutes?

The settled formulation is that the power, though wide, is used to supplement the law and fill interstices — not to supplant substantive statutory provisions or ignore express statutory prohibitions. The Court moulds procedure and relief; it is far more reluctant to manufacture substantive rights contrary to legislation, and its own decisions caution against using the article in disregard of statutory schemes.

How does it matter in ordinary SLP practice?

Concretely: recording comprehensive settlements that close multiple proceedings at once; dissolving marriages on irretrievable breakdown as part of complete settlements; quashing or transferring proceedings to prevent abuse; regularising equities that strict relief would leave unaddressed. Prayer clauses in SLPs routinely invoke Article 142 in aid of such outcomes, and settlement-stage strategy is often built around it.

Note: This article is general information about the law and is not legal advice. It does not create an advocate-client relationship. The position stated is as at 1 September 2026 and may have changed since. Readers should verify any provision or decision referred to against the official text and seek advice on their own circumstances.