The Supreme Court utilized its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to quash criminal cases against Gen Z protesters. Discover the scope and limits of this unique constitutional power.
- The Supreme Court quashed FIRs against NEET-UG 2026 protesters using Article 142.
- Article 142 allows the Court to pass orders to ensure "complete justice."
- The power is expansive but cannot violate the Constitution or fundamental rights.
New Delhi: In a landmark move on Tuesday, the Supreme Court of India took an extraordinary step to quash criminal cases registered against Gen Z protesters involved in the nationwide demonstrations linked to the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) following the NEET-UG 2026 question paper leak. A three-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, invoked the absolute powers vested under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure that the FIRs are closed for all intents and purposes.
What is Article 142?
Article 142 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or make any order necessary for doing "complete justice" in any cause or matter pending before it. This power is unique because it allows the judiciary to move beyond the rigid confines of statutory law to address gaps where existing laws might fail to deliver equitable results.
The Scope of Judicial Power
The breadth of this power has been tested through several decades of jurisprudence. In the 1963 case of Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P., the Court established that while the power is wide, it cannot be used to contravene a constitutional provision. Conversely, in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991), the Court held that limitations in ordinary statutes do not act as barriers to the constitutional mandate of Article 142.
Why This Matters: BozokMedia Analysis
BozokMedia analysis shows that the invocation of Article 142 in the NEET protest context represents a significant check against the potential misuse of criminal law against political or social protesters. It highlights the Court's role as a guardian of equity, ensuring that the legal machinery is not used as a tool for harassment when the ends of justice demand otherwise.
Article 142 serves as a curative tool that allows the judiciary to iron out the creases in the law to achieve true justice.
In the recent 2023 Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan judgment, the Constitution Bench further clarified that the Court can depart from both procedural and substantive laws if it serves the broader interest of public policy and complete justice.
The Constitutional Limits
Despite its vastness, Article 142 is not an absolute license. The 1998 case of Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India established that this power is supplementary and residual. It can supplement the law, but it cannot supplant (replace) substantive law. Essentially, the Court can use it to bridge gaps, but it cannot disregard the core legislative framework established by Parliament.
| Feature | Ordinary Statutory Power | Article 142 Power |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Objective | Adherence to codified law | Ensuring "Complete Justice" |
| Legal Nature | Prescriptive and Limited | Supplementary and Residual |
| Applicability | Strictly within statute bounds | Broad constitutional mandate |
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Can Article 142 be used to override Fundamental Rights?
No. The Supreme Court has consistently held that any order passed under Article 142 must remain consistent with the Constitution and fundamental rights.
2. Is Article 142 a tool for the Supreme Court to make new laws?
No, it is a curative power meant to supplement existing laws to achieve justice, not to act as a legislature.
