Mains Practice Questions

Introduction

Article 142 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to issue orders or decrees to ensure "complete justice" in any case. This provision has allowed the Court to address gaps in legislation and executive action, but it's activism has raised concerns regarding the doctrine of separation of powers, a cornerstone of India’s democratic framework.

Article 142 and its Role in Judicial Activism:

• Scope of Article 142: Enables the Supreme Court to address issues where legislative or executive actions are absent or ineffective.
  • Allows the judiciary to uphold constitutional values, safeguard fundamental rights, and deliver social justice by intervening in public interest.
• Judicial Precedents Reflecting Evolving Interpretations:
  • Vishaka Guidelines (1997): Addressed workplace sexual harassment in the absence of specific legislation, eventually leading to the enactment of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act, 2013.
  • Babita Puniya Case (2020): Mandated permanent commission for women in the Indian Army, promoting gender equality.
  • K.S. Puttaswamy Case (2017): Affirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right, showcasing the judiciary's role in protecting individual liberties.

Implications on Separation of Powers:

While Article 142 has facilitated judicial intervention in critical cases, its evolving interpretations have raised significant concerns regarding the separation of powers.

Positive Impacts on Governance:

• Addressing Legislative and Executive Inaction:
  • Coal Block Allocation Case (2014): The Supreme Court canceled illegal coal block allocations, ensuring accountability where the executive had failed.
  • Cleaning of the Taj Mahal: Highlighted the judiciary’s proactive role in addressing environmental and heritage preservation concerns.
• Protection of Constitutional Rights:
  • Strengthened democracy by protecting minority rights, addressing systemic discrimination, and ensuring inclusivity.
  • Example: Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (2020) resolved conflicting interpretations regarding daughters' coparcenary rights, ensuring gender justice.
• Social Justice and Equity: Tackled societal issues neglected by the legislature or executive.
  • In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, the Court addressed concerns such as overcrowding, delayed trials, and the prolonged detention of undertrials.
    • It instructed state governments to promptly identify and release undertrials who are eligible for release under Section 436A of the CrPC.
  • In November 2024, Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti re-emphasized that releasing all eligible undertrials is vital to tackling inhuman conditions and overcrowding in prisons, highlighting the importance of hearing the voiceless prisoner.

Challenges to Separation of Powers:

• Judicial Overreach: Activism under Article 142 often blurs the boundaries between the judiciary, legislature, and executive.
  • In the S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994) case, the Supreme Court's intervention in Karnataka's political crisis established the floor test as the key measure of a party's support in power, blurring the line between the executive and judiciary and raising concerns of judicial overreach.
• Subjective Definition of "Complete Justice": The absence of a standardized framework for "complete justice" grants the judiciary wide discretion. This can lead to inconsistency and potential misuse.
  • The lack of uniformity in judicial rulings on contentious issues (e.g., reservations or economic policies) can create unpredictability.
• Encroachment on Legislative Authority: When courts issue directives or guidelines (e.g., Vishaka Guidelines), it undermines the legislature's authority to enact laws.
  • Unlike the legislature and executive, judicial decisions under Article 142 are not easily subject to scrutiny or reversal.
• Erosion of Institutional Balance: Prolonged judicial intervention in policy matters may weaken institutional capacities of the legislature and executive, encouraging dependency on courts for resolving non-judicial issues.

Way Forward

• Defining "Complete Justice": Establish clear guidelines to standardize the scope of Article 142 and minimize subjective interpretation.
• Promoting Institutional Balance: Judiciary should exercise self-restraint in areas that fall exclusively within the domain of the legislature and executive, unless there is a constitutional or fundamental rights violation.
• Strengthening Accountability: Judicial decisions under Article 142 should be accompanied by detailed reasoning and periodic review mechanisms to ensure checks and balances.
• Fostering Collaborative Governance: The legislature and executive must address judicial observations and fill policy gaps to reduce dependence on Article 142 interventions.

Conclusion

While judicial activism under Article 142 has reinforced democracy and social justice, its overreach risks undermining the principle of separation of powers. A calibrated approach, emphasizing judicial restraint and inter-institutional cooperation, is vital to preserving constitutional balance and strengthening democratic governance.