TAG: GS 2: POLITY
THE CONTEXT: The recent overturning of the Chandigarh mayoral poll results by the Supreme Court, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, has sparked discussions about the nature and scope of this extraordinary legal provision.
EXPLANATION:
- BJP candidate Manoj Sonkar won the election with 16 votes, defeating AAP-Congress alliance candidate Kuldeep Kumar who received 12 votes.
- Eight votes cast for Kumar were declared invalid by the returning officer citing “marks” on them.
- AAP alleged foul play and accused the officer of manipulating the process.
- Sonkar, however, resigned subsequently, while three AAP councillors defected to the BJP.
Understanding Article 142
- Article 142 grants the Supreme Court unique and extraordinary powers to ensure “complete justice” between parties when legal remedies are lacking.
- This power becomes relevant when the law or statutes fall short in providing a remedy for a particular situation.
- In the Chandigarh mayoral poll case, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to overturn the election results.
- The court asserted that it is duty-bound, under Article 142, to uphold the integrity of the electoral process.
Historical Exercise of Article 142
- Scope Defined by Judgments
- Over time, the Supreme Court has defined the scope and limitations of Article 142 through various judgments.
- Notably, in the Prem Chand Garg case, the court emphasized that its powers must align with constitutional rights and not contravene statutory laws.
- The Bhopal gas tragedy case highlighted the wide scope of Article 142, stating it operates at a different level and quality.
- Criticism and Counterarguments
- The sweeping powers of Article 142 have faced criticism for being arbitrary and ambiguous.
- Critics argue that the lack of a standard definition for “complete justice” grants the court excessive discretion, potentially leading to misuse.
- In response, the court, in the Supreme Court Bar Association vs Union of India case (1998), clarified that Article 142 powers are supplementary and should not supplant substantive laws.
- The court imposed self-checks to prevent misuse.
Controversies Surrounding Article 142
- Separation of Powers Concerns
- One of the criticisms against Article 142 revolves around concerns regarding the separation of powers doctrine.
- Critics argue that judicial overreach may occur when the judiciary ventures into lawmaking, a domain traditionally reserved for the legislature and executive.
- However, the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution intended to limit the use of Article 142 to exceptional situations where existing laws fail.
- Accountability and Judicial Overreach
- Another critique questions the lack of accountability for judicial actions under Article 142.
- The judiciary’s exercise of these powers has been scrutinized in the context of potential judicial overreach.
- However, the Supreme Court, in the State of Karnataka vs Umadevi case (2006), emphasized that “complete justice” means justice according to law, not sympathy, and should not perpetuate illegality.
Article 142:
- Article 142 titled ‘Enforcement of decrees and orders of the Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc.’ has two clauses:
- Article 142(1)
- The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
- Any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India.
- It may be in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.
- Article 142(2)
- The Supreme Court shall have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.
Conclusion
- The recent use of Article 142 in the Chandigarh mayoral poll case showcases the court’s commitment to ensuring fairness and justice.
- While the provision’s broad powers have sparked debates and criticisms, the judiciary’s efforts to define its scope and impose checks on its exercise highlight a nuanced approach.
- The ongoing dialogue surrounding Article 142 underscores the delicate balance between safeguarding justice and avoiding arbitrary use of extraordinary powers by the judiciary.
