Can High Courts Exercise Supreme Court’s Powers Under Article 142?
1
52
0
In a significant affirmation of the constitutional distribution of powers, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday, April 22, 2025, categorically rejected a petition seeking to extend the extraordinary powers granted to the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to the High Courts. The two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the plea, terming it as "completely misconceived" and lacking any constitutional merit.
What is Article 142?
Article 142 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court sweeping powers to pass any order necessary for doing "complete justice" in any matter before it. This article has often been referred to as the judicial tool of last resort, allowing the apex court to transcend procedural limitations to ensure justice is served. Over the years, the provision has been used in a variety of landmark rulings, including those concerning environmental protection, delayed justice, and constitutional interpretation.
The Petition and Its Premise
The petition, filed by Pankaj K. Phadnis under W.P.(C) No. 395/2025, titled Abhinav Bharat Congress v. Union of India and Ors., sought to empower High Courts with similar authority under Article 142. Phadnis, appearing in person, argued that the ability to do "complete justice" should not be the exclusive privilege of the Supreme Court, particularly given the increasing burden on the apex court and the accessibility of High
Courts to the public.
The petitioner posited two main arguments:
Conferment of Powers: That the High Courts should be empowered either directly through judicial interpretation or through the Court's order to exercise powers akin to those under Article 142.
Alternative Interpretation: In the alternative, Article 226—under which High Courts can issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and other purposes—should be interpreted in a way that aligns with Article 142 to allow High Courts to grant complete relief.
Court’s Response: A Clear Rebuttal
The Court, however, found no constitutional backing for the petitioner’s claims. Justice Oka, in an open court observation, said:
“Your prayer is that we should confer on the High Court the power of this court under Article 142. Can that be done unless the Constitution is amended? We can strike down a portion of the Constitution, but we can't amend it. This prayer is not capable of being granted.”
The bench emphasized that the power under Article 142 is sui generis—unique and exclusive to the Supreme Court. It exists to maintain the Court’s role as the highest judicial authority in the country and cannot be extended to High Courts through judicial fiat. The justices firmly stated that any such amendment lies exclusively within the domain of Parliament.
Further, when the petitioner suggested that a Constitution Bench could be constituted to deliberate on this issue, Justice Oka responded unequivocally:
“A Constitution bench cannot amend the Constitution.”
Rejection of Parallel Interpretations
Phadnis also floated the idea of interpreting Article 226 to mirror the functional scope of Article 142, suggesting this could be a judicial workaround. However, this too was rejected.
The Court held that Article 226, though broad and significant in itself, cannot be stretched to assume the exceptional nature of Article 142. The intention of the framers of the Constitution, as per the Court’s understanding, was to vest only the Supreme Court with such unbridled discretion to ensure "complete justice."
Request for Amicus Curiae Denied
In what seemed to be a final effort to bolster the plea, Phadnis requested that an amicus curiae be appointed to assist the Court in the matter. The bench, however, saw no merit in doing so given the lack of legal substance in the petition. The Court concluded that neither was there a prima facie case nor a constitutional question of sufficient complexity that warranted such intervention.
Wider Implications and Legal Clarity
This judgment reaffirms a critical constitutional principle: that extraordinary powers like those under Article 142 are not meant for regular judicial forums but are reserved solely for the Supreme Court. The ruling serves to delineate the boundaries of judicial authority, particularly in a constitutional democracy where the separation of powers is paramount.
Moreover, the decision reflects the Court's restrained approach to judicial overreach. By declining to entertain a petition that would blur the hierarchical distinctions in the judiciary, the Court has also preempted a possible flood of similar petitions attempting to reinterpret well-established constitutional boundaries.
Conclusion: Legislative, Not Judicial Domain
In dismissing the plea, the Court gave a gentle yet firm reminder of constitutional discipline:
“There is absolutely no merit in the prayer made by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no question of appointing amicus curiae or referring the case to the Constitution bench.”
Ultimately, the bench advised the petitioner that if he truly sought such a change, his recourse lies not in the judiciary, but in Parliament—the only body competent to amend the Constitution.
As India continues to grapple with the balance between judicial activism and constitutional constraints, this judgment underscores the Court’s adherence to principle over populism.
Case Title: Abhinav Bharat Congress v. Union of India and Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 395/2025
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Date of Judgment: 22 April 2025
