What is Article 142 that the Supreme Court used to quash FIRs against NEET protesters? | Explained

Article 142 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court unique and expansive power to pass any decree or order necessary for doing 'complete justice' in any cause or matter pending before it. This acts as a residual power, filling legislative gaps where existing laws might not provide an adequate or fair remedy. From a UPSC perspective, understanding the evolution of this power through key judgments is crucial. The article highlights how the Court has interpreted this power over time: initially as a 'wide and elastic' tool in cases like I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), to later clarifying that ordinary statutory limits do not restrict this constitutional power (e.g., Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, 1991). The recent application to quash FIRs against NEET protesters demonstrates how the Court uses Article 142 to bypass standard procedural channels (like a High Court quashing under Section 482 of CrPC) when it deems it essential for equitable justice, particularly involving young citizens.

While Article 142 provides broad authority, its application is not without boundaries, which is a frequent topic in UPSC Mains questions regarding judicial overreach versus judicial activism. The governance challenge lies in balancing the Supreme Court's mandate for 'complete justice' with the established framework of substantive laws. Important constitutional limits have been established, beginning with Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P. (1963), which ruled that orders under Article 142 cannot violate fundamental rights or be inconsistent with specific constitutional provisions. Furthermore, as clarified in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), Article 142 is a curative power meant to supplement, not supplant, substantive law; the Court generally cannot ignore statutory provisions covering a subject. The recent High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. (2024) judgment also emphasized that the exercise of this power must respect principles of natural justice, ensuring it does not infringe upon the substantive rights of individuals who are not parties to the specific case.

The application of Article 142 in the case of the NEET protesters highlights the Court's role in addressing contemporary socio-legal issues where strict adherence to criminal procedure might result in disproportionate hardship. The Court's ability to 'iron out the creases'—balancing equities between conflicting claims—is a key feature of its jurisprudence under this article. The landmark Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) judgment provides a clear illustration of this breadth, where the Court ruled it could depart from procedural and substantive law (e.g., granting divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown) if based on 'fundamental considerations of general and specific public policy.' In the context of the NEET protests, the Court implicitly recognized the broader public policy interest in not criminalizing young students engaged in protests related to systemic failures in examinations, thereby utilizing Article 142 to protect their futures from the burden of criminal litigation.