\n<\/p>\n
The recent remarks by Vice President Dhankhar about Article 142 of the Indian Constitution have ignited a fierce nationwide debate about judicial powers and constitutional boundaries. His comments, specifically questioning the Supreme Court\u2019s use of this provision in the Tamil Nadu case, have brought unprecedented attention to this constitutional tool.<\/p>\n
The controversy highlights the complex relationship between India\u2019s judiciary and executive branches. However, beyond the political rhetoric, this debate raises fundamental questions about the scope of judicial authority and its impact on democratic governance.<\/p>\n
This comprehensive analysis examines the origins and applications of Article 142, the context of the Tamil Nadu case, and the broader implications for India\u2019s constitutional democracy. We\u2019ll explore why this provision matters, how it has been used historically, and what the current debate means for the future of judicial power in India.<\/p>\n
At the heart of India\u2019s judicial powers lies Article 142, a provision that grants extraordinary authority to the Supreme Court. Unlike many constitutional provisions with global parallels, Article 142 stands relatively unique in its scope and application.<\/p>\n
Article 142 entered India\u2019s constitutional framework with minimal debate. Initially introduced as Article 118 in the Draft Constitution, it was adopted by the Constituent Assembly without significant discussion. This silence left the Supreme Court with considerable latitude to interpret its own powers.<\/p>\n
The provision states: \u201cThe 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<\/em><\/span>\u201c. Fundamentally, it was designed to ensure the apex court could deliver justice beyond the limitations of existing laws.<\/p>\n During constituent assembly debates, Krishna Chandra Sharma <\/strong>compared the proposed powers to those of the Privy Council, noting that the Supreme Court should be \u201cabove law<\/em>\u201d in its ability to \u201cpass any order which it considers just\u201d<\/em>. This revealing statement underscores the founders\u2019 intent to create a powerful judiciary with broad remedial powers.<\/p>\n Article 142 essentially transforms the Supreme Court from merely an interpreter of laws to an institution that can fill legislative gaps and create new legal remedies. This provision enables the court to:<\/p>\n An empirical study by IIM Ahmedabad found that between 1950 and 2023, the Supreme Court mentioned Article 142 or the phrase \u201ccomplete justice<\/strong><\/em>\u201d in 1,579 cases, though it explicitly invoked these powers in only 791 instances [3]<\/a>. Notably, the study revealed that most cases were civil matters, demonstrating the provision\u2019s primary application area.<\/p>\n The scope of these powers has evolved considerably. Initially, in Prem Chand Garg (1962), the Court took a restrictive view, holding that orders under Article 142 must remain consistent with fundamental rights and substantive statutory laws [4]<\/a>. However, by 1991, in the Delhi Judicial Service Association, the Court declared these powers were \u201centirely of a different level and of a different quality\u201d from ordinary legal provisions.<\/p>\n Prior to 2024, the Supreme Court wielded Article 142 in several landmark cases that shaped India\u2019s legal landscape:<\/p>\n The Court\u2019s approach in these cases demonstrates both the flexibility and potential concerns surrounding Article 142. While some view these interventions as necessary to address legislative gaps, others see them as potential judicial overreach that blurs the separation of powers.<\/p>\n The constitutional standoff between Tamil Nadu\u2019s government and its Governor culminated in a landmark judgment that fundamentally altered how state legislation becomes law. This unprecedented case showcased the Supreme Court\u2019s willingness to exercise its extraordinary constitutional powers in the face of executive inaction.<\/p>\n Also Read \u2013<\/strong> Historic Verdict by Supreme Court: Tamil Nadu Governor Must Clear Bills Within 30 Day<\/a>s<\/p>\n Between January 2020 and April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed several bills that remained pending with Governor R.N. Ravi, some for years. The most contentious bills sought to reduce the Governor\u2019s traditional powers, particularly regarding university governance.<\/p>\n The oldest pending bill dated back to January 2020, enacted during the previous AIADMK government, which proposed renaming the Tamil Nadu Fisheries University after former Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa<\/strong>. Most bills focused on amending state university laws, transferring the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors from the Governor (who serves as Chancellor) to the state government.<\/p>\n After the DMK government filed a petition in October 2023 alleging \u201cinaction, omission, delay, and failure\u201d by the Governor, the matter escalated. Following initial Supreme Court scrutiny, the Governor suddenly returned ten bills to the Assembly in November 2023. The legislature promptly reconvened in a special session, re-passed all bills without changes, and sent them back to the Governor [7]<\/a>.<\/p>\n Instead of granting assent as constitutionally expected after re-passage, Governor Ravi reserved all ten bills for presidential consideration in November 2023 [8]<\/a>. Subsequently, the President rejected seven bills, approved one, and left two undecided.<\/p>\n On April 8, 2025, a division bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered a judgment that fundamentally altered the legislative landscape. The Court declared the Governor\u2019s actions of reserving bills for the President after they had been reconsidered and re-passed by the Assembly as \u201cillegal and erroneous in law\u201d.<\/p>\n Going further, the Court invoked Article 142 to declare that all ten bills \u201care deemed to have been assented to by the Governor on the date they were presented after being reconsidered\u201d \u2013 essentially making them law retroactively from November 18, 2023 [9]<\/a>.<\/p>\n The judgment established specific timelines for gubernatorial action:<\/strong><\/p>\n Accordingly, the Court established that there is no concept of \u201cabsolute veto\u201d or \u201cpocket veto\u201d<\/strong> under the constitutional scheme. Additionally, the judgment clarified that governors must normally act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in granting assent to bills [9]<\/a>.<\/p>\n This application of Article 142 created a constitutional first \u2013 laws that took effect without the formal assent of either the Governor or the President [11]<\/a>. Following the ruling, Tamil Nadu issued a gazette notification on April 11, 2025, bringing these laws into effect without the traditional executive signature [12]<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Court justified this extraordinary measure by citing \u201cthe unduly long period of time for which these Bills were kept pending by the Governor before the ultimate declaration of withholding of assent and in view of the scant respect shown by the governor\u201d to the Court\u2019s previous decisions [9]<\/a>.<\/p>\n Importantly, the judgment even nullified actions the President had already taken on seven bills, declaring them void since they originated from an unconstitutional reservation [13]<\/a>. As the Court explained, \u201cany subsequent steps taken by the President, too, do not survive\u201d.<\/p>\n Attorney General R. Venkataramani immediately expressed concerns, stating \u201cOn Article 142, there is going to be some issue on that. Permit me to come back to that<\/em>\u201c. Reports later indicated the Ministry of Home Affairs might file a review petition challenging aspects of the judgment [11]<\/a>.<\/p>\n This unprecedented exercise of Article 142 signaled the Court\u2019s determination to address what it viewed as a constitutional impasse, effectively bypassing established executive gatekeeping functions in the legislative process.<\/p>\n Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar\u2019s<\/strong> strong criticism of the Supreme Court\u2019s use of Article 142 of Indian Constitution ignited a political firestorm that quickly divided along party lines. His comments represented an unprecedented challenge to judicial authority from the country\u2019s second-highest constitutional office.<\/p>\n In a controversial address to the Conference of Presiding Officers in April 2024, Dhankhar directly questioned the Supreme Court\u2019s Tamil Nadu judgment. He described the Court\u2019s use of Article 142 as \u201cunthinkable<\/em><\/strong>\u201d and an action that \u201cshatters the very essence<\/em><\/strong>\u201d of constitutional separation of powers.<\/p>\n \u201cCan the Honorable Supreme Court, through Article 142, create law? Can the Honourable Supreme Court say that laws deemed to have been assented to by the Governor?<\/em>\u201d Dhankhar asked rhetorically. He further stated that the judgment \u201ceclipsed\u201d the role of both Governor and President, calling it \u201cconstitutionally unprecedented.<\/em><\/strong>\u201c<\/p>\n The Vice President\u2019s remarks went beyond mere disagreement, suggesting a \u201cconcerning constitutional situation\u201d <\/em>where \u201cdemocratic institutions are being compromised.<\/em>\u201d Throughout his address, Dhankhar repeatedly emphasised his view that Article 142 could not authorise the creation of laws without executive assent.<\/p>\n Opposition leaders immediately condemned Dhankhar\u2019s remarks as an attack on judicial independence. Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge <\/strong>called the comments \u201cconstitutionally improper<\/em>\u201d and accused Dhankhar of \u201cundermining the judiciary at the government\u2019s behest<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n Meanwhile, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin<\/strong> characterised the Vice President\u2019s statements as \u201cpolitically motivated interference\u201d<\/em> designed to protect gubernatorial powers. Other opposition figures, including senior advocates-turned-politicians, warned about an \u201cinstitutional crisis<\/em>\u201d if constitutional officers openly challenged Supreme Court judgments.<\/p>\n Several parties jointly issued a statement expressing \u201cgrave concern<\/em>\u201d over what they termed \u201cexecutive overreach<\/em>\u201d and demanded that the Vice President withdraw his remarks.<\/p>\n The ruling BJP firmly backed Dhankhar, with Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal asserting the Vice President had merely highlighted \u201clegitimate constitutional concerns<\/em>.\u201d Senior party spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad defended Dhankhar\u2019s right to express views on constitutional matters, given his background as a former Supreme Court lawyer.<\/p>\n Government sources also circulated a legal note arguing that Article 142 must be read in conjunction with Article 145(3), suggesting the Tamil Nadu judgment should have been decided by a larger constitutional bench. Furthermore, several constitutional experts aligned with the government\u2019s view appeared on television debates supporting the VP\u2019s position.<\/p>\n At this point, the controversy transformed into a larger debate about judicial boundaries and constitutional interpretation, extending far beyond the specific Tamil Nadu case.<\/p>\n The constitutional debate around Article 142 of Indian Constitution<\/strong> has revealed deep divisions between those who see it as essential for justice and others who consider it a dangerous expansion of judicial power.<\/p>\n Critics, including constitutional experts and government officials, have raised serious concerns about the Supreme Court\u2019s expanding powers. Vice President Dhankhar characterised Article 142 as a \u201cnuclear missile against democratic forces\u201d<\/strong> available to judges \u201c24\u00d77\u201d <\/strong>[14]<\/a>. This metaphor underscores fears that judges are assuming legislative and executive functions without proper accountability.<\/p>\n Many opponents point to the Tamil Nadu case as a textbook example of overreach. By directly enacting bills without gubernatorial consent, the Court effectively took over executive functions. Legal scholars argue this contradicts the basic structure doctrine by disturbing the delicate balance between constitutional institutions [1]<\/a>.<\/p>\n Moreover, critics have questioned procedural propriety. As the Vice President noted, the Tamil Nadu judgment was rendered by a two-judge bench despite Article 145(3) requiring at least five judges to decide substantial constitutional questions [14]<\/a>.<\/p>\n Conversely, supporters maintain the Court was merely addressing a \u201cconstitutional silence\u201d regarding what happens when governors indefinitely delay assent. They argue that extraordinary judicial action becomes necessary when constitutional deadlocks threaten governance.<\/p>\n Senior advocates like K.K. Venugopal defended the judgment as a necessary clarification of Article 201 [8]<\/a>. Others praised the Court for establishing clear responsibilities for constitutional functionaries where none existed before.<\/p>\n In cases where legislation is absent or inadequate, supporters contend the Court must step in to protect constitutional values. This \u201cdoctrine of constitutional silence\u201d recognises the impossibility of addressing every potential scenario in the Constitution\u2019s text.<\/p>\nHow it empowers the Supreme Court<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
Examples of past use before 2024<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
How Article 142 was used in the Tamil Nadu case<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Background of the Tamil Nadu bills<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Supreme Court\u2019s April 8 judgment<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
Why the use of Article 142 was significant ?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
VP Dhankhar\u2019s remarks and the political fallout<\/strong><\/h2>\n
What the Vice President said<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Reactions from opposition parties<\/strong><\/h3>\n
BJP\u2019s Defense of the VP<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Judicial overreach or necessary justice?<\/strong><\/h2>\n
What critics say about judicial overreach<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Supporters\u2019 view: filling constitutional silence<\/strong><\/h3>\n
The role of Article 145(3) and separation of powers<\/strong><\/h3>\n