Why in news?

The Supreme Court recently took suo motu cognisance of two road accidents in November 2025 that claimed 34 lives, and in the case In Re: Phalodi Accident vs. NHAI and Others (2025), elevated the Right to Safe Travel on National Highways as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court exercised its extraordinary power under Article 142 to deliver complete justice — issuing wide-ranging directives to the government. This has renewed debate about the scope, necessity, and limits of Article 142.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Background — Road Safety Crisis in India
• What is Article 142 — The Power of Complete Justice
• Why is Complete Justice Necessary?
• Can High Courts Also Deliver Complete Justice
• Article 142 and the Separation of Powers Debate

Background — Road Safety Crisis in India

• The Court's intervention was prompted by alarming road safety statistics that made judicial inaction unconscionable:
  • National Highways comprise only 2% of India's total roads but account for 30% of all road fatalities.
  • In 2025 alone, National Highways saw ~26,770 deaths in the first six months.
  • Despite a 11% decline in fatalities compared to 2024, the numbers remain unacceptably high.
• The government aims to reduce road accidents by 50% by 2030 through a strategy focused on the four Es — Education, Engineering, Enforcement, and Emergency Medical Services.

What is Article 142 — The Power of Complete Justice

• Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it — even if existing laws or procedural rules do not provide a specific remedy.
• This power acts as a "constitutional safety valve" to fill legal gaps and prevent injustice.
• Nature of the Power
  • The power under Article 142 is residuary in nature — it exists to address situations where ordinary law is silent, inadequate, or incapable of providing relief.
  • It is inherent to the Supreme Court's role as the highest court and custodian of the Constitution — not conferred by statute.
  • It goes beyond strict procedural constraints to prevent injustice or abuse of process.
  • Two key conditions for invoking Article 142 are — a manifest error and a situation where non-exercise would lead to a travesty of justice.
• Key Judicial Interpretations
  • Delhi Judicial Service Association vs. State of Gujarat (1991) — The power to do complete justice is "entirely of a different level and of a different quality" — restrictions in ordinary laws cannot limit this constitutional power.
  • Canara Bank vs. Debasis Das (2003) — The Constitution intends to deliver substantive justice — removal of injustices — through either legal or natural justice. Where legal justice fails, natural justice must prevail.
  • Hitesh Bhatnagar vs. Deepa Bhatnagar (2011) — Recognised the extraordinary nature of this jurisdiction and held that extraordinary care and caution must be observed while exercising it.

Why is Complete Justice Necessary?

• A natural question arises — can justice ever be incomplete? The answer lies in the gap between law and justice.
• Laws are created at a particular point in time and may become inadequate as new and evolving social realities emerge — such as live-in relationships, matters relating to homosexuality, environmental crises, or digital privacy violations.
• In such situations, the Supreme Court — as the custodian of the Constitution — must proactively fill the gap to ensure justice is actually delivered, not just procedurally processed.
• Article 142 is therefore the constitutional mechanism that allows the Court to ensure that formal legal justice does not become a barrier to actual substantive justice.

Can High Courts Also Deliver Complete Justice?

• In Anil Kumar Jain vs. Maya Jain (2009), the Supreme Court held that the powers of High Courts under Article 226 are not at par with those of the Supreme Court under Article 142.
• However, High Courts can still deliver complete justice — albeit in a more circumscribed manner.
• The distinction is one of degree and scope, not of fundamental principle — justice is always intended to be complete at every level of the judicial hierarchy.

Article 142 and the Separation of Powers Debate

• The Criticism — Judicial Overreach
  • The exercise of Article 142 is frequently criticised as judicial overreach — the argument being that the Court bypasses established laws and procedures and encroaches upon the domain of the Executive and Legislature, violating the principle of separation of powers.
  • Critics argue that it allows unelected judges to make policy decisions that should properly belong to elected representatives.
• The Counter-Argument — Judicial Activism
  • Proponents argue that such criticism lacks rationale.
  • Judicial activism — which Article 142 enables — involves the proactive and progressive interpretation of laws and constitutional provisions to deliver justice in rapidly changing social, economic, political, and value systems.
  • The constitutional intent of Article 142 is to deliver justice — social, economic, political, or legal — and not to usurp legislative or executive power.
  • The Court exercises this power precisely when the other two branches have failed to act or when laws have become inadequate.