Context: 

This editorial is based on the news “Supreme Court declares AAP leader as Mayor of Chandigarh” which was published in the Hindu. 

• The Supreme Court (SC) invoked the powers of Article 142 of the constitution in overturning the results of Chandigarh mayor election. 

Recent Supreme Court Verdict On Chandigarh Mayor Election Controversy

• Chandigarh Mayor Election 2024: Annual Mayoral elections had been conducted for the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation, consisting of 35 councillors.
• Defacing Discovered: The returning officer was caught on security camera “defacing” eight ballot papers.  
• Supreme Court Observation: The Supreme Court condemned the incident as “Mockery of Democracy” and ordered the ballots, records and security camera footage to be produced in the SC.
• Upholding Electoral Democracy: The SC asserted its responsibility to do complete justice under Article 142 in order to prevent the undermining of electoral democracy.
• Review Over Re-election: Instead of ordering a new election, the Court reviewed the election results, identifying that issues occurred specifically during the counting and declaration stages.

About Article 142 of Indian Constitution

• Discretionary Powers: It empowers the court to pass decrees or make orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. 

Significance of Article 142 of Indian Constitution

• Justice Restoration: It grants the SC unique and powerful authority to ensure complete justice for parties affected by legal injustices or irregularities in their cases.
• Uphold Citizen’s Rights: It protects the rights of the different sections of the population, especially the vulnerable section.
• Checks and Balances the Government Actions: The provision works as a system of checks and balances with the Government or Legislature.

Criticism of Article 142 of Indian Constitution

• Arbitrary and Ambiguous Powers: Article 142’s broad powers have drawn criticism for their potential for arbitrary use, largely due to the undefined concept of “complete justice,” leading to concerns about the Supreme Court’s discretion.
• Judicial Accountability and Overreach: Lack of accountability for the judiciary compared to the legislature and executive, raises concerns about judicial overreach. 
• Economic Impact: The judicial verdicts affect the economic policy of the government. 
• The Supreme Court’s ruling to prohibit liquor sales near highways led to significant losses in the hospitality sector, causing unemployment for many.
• Lack of Expertise: The Court, proficient in legal matters, may lack specialised knowledge in policy making, affecting its decisions on broader legislative issues.
• Legitimacy Issues: Judicially enacted laws miss the extensive scrutiny and debate seen in Parliament, leading to concerns about their legitimacy.

Checks and Balances Provided

• Supreme Court Bar Association vs Union of India (1998): The SC held that the powers under Article 142 are supplementary in nature and could not be used to supplant or override a substantive law.
• A. Jideranath vs Jubilee Hills Co-op House Building Society (2006): The ruling highlighted that exercise of Article 142 does not cause injustice to non-parties of a case.

Expansion of the Scope of Article 142 of Indian Constitution

• Prem Chand Garg Case (1962): Established that orders under Article 142 providing complete justice to the parties, must align with the Constitution and cannot contradict statutory laws.
• Antulay Case (1988): A seven-judge bench reaffirmed the Prem Chand Garg ruling, upholding the principles set regarding the exercise of powers under Article 142.
• Union Carbide Corporation vs Union of India Case (1991): The SC expanded the understanding of Article 142 asserting that statutory limitations do not restrict its constitutional powers.

Way Forward

• Defining “Complete Justice: The apex court should take efforts to define the term ” Complete Justice” to define the scope and reach of judicial interventions. 
• Studying Article 142 Cases: The government should publish a white paper analysing the judgement’s impacts, both positive and negative, in all such cases where Article 142 was invoked.
• Cautious use of Article 142: The Supreme Court should use Article 142 cautiously, keeping in mind democratic system and upholding the principles of justice, and constitutional values.

DOWNLOAD PDF