Decoded: What is Article 142 that put the SC in a constitutional crossfire?

The Supreme Court's latest ruling has redrawn the limits of Article 142, overturning its own 'deemed assent' order and clarifying how far the judiciary can intervene in legislative-executive disputes

There is a high-stakes constitutional drama unfolding between the legislature and the executive, and in the middle of it is Article 142, a powerful but contentious provision that allows the Supreme Court to pass orders to ensure “complete justice”. What was once considered a rarely invoked tool has now become the centre of a national debate.

 

After the Supreme Court used Article 142 to declare a set of Tamil Nadu bills as having received “deemed assent” earlier this year, the Court has now overturned parts of its own ruling, dismissing judicially imposed timelines for assent and clarifying the limits of its power. In a unanimous decision on November 20, the Court clarified that it cannot impose deadlines on governors or the President for deciding on bills, cannot require the President to seek the Court’s opinion on bills reserved for her, and cannot itself confer “deemed assent” on pending legislation.

 

What caused the Tamil Nadu–Governor confrontation?

 

The immediate flashpoint was a dispute between the Tamil Nadu government and the state’s Governor, R N Ravi. Between 2020 and 2023, the Tamil Nadu legislature passed a series of bills. The state argued that the Governor withheld assent, returned bills repeatedly or reserved some for the President without clear communication.

 

The state moved the Supreme Court claiming that prolonged inaction frustrated the legislature’s mandate. Earlier this year, a two-judge bench ordered that a set of re-passed bills should be treated as having received “deemed assent”, prompting the state government to notify ten such laws. This unprecedented use of Article 142 triggered intense debate.

 

What is Article 142 and why is it so powerful?

 

Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to issue any order necessary to do “complete justice” in a case before it. This gives the Court wide discretion, particularly where laws are silent or inadequate.

 

The provision can be used to enforce judgments, issue directions, demand documents or act against contempt. Critics argue that its breadth risks enabling judicial overreach. In the Tamil Nadu case, the bench used Article 142 to justify intervention on the grounds that the Governor’s prolonged inaction had created a constitutional impasse.

 

What were the biggest legal questions in the dispute?

 

Three core constitutional issues emerged:

 

• Whether Article 142 can override roles assigned by the Constitution to other authorities such as governors or the President
• Whether the Court can set timelines or confer “deemed assent” when the Constitution specifies none
• Whether using Article 142 in this way respects the separation of powers

 

President Droupadi Murmu formally sought clarity under Article 143, referring 14 questions to the Court, including whether “deemed assent” and judicial timelines were constitutionally valid.

 

How did the Supreme Court resolve the matter?

 

A larger, five-judge bench reviewed the issue following widespread concern. Legal commentators stressed that Article 142 is extraordinary and must not be used to replace the Constitution’s allocation of functions. The Court ultimately held that Article 142 cannot substitute the roles of governors or the President or pre-empt their decisions.

 

However, the Court did acknowledge that if constitutional actors act mala fide or obstruct legislative will, narrow and carefully tailored Article 142 remedies may still be justified.

 

What does this ruling mean for Article 142 going forward?

 

The verdict signals that Article 142 remains powerful but must be applied sparingly. The Tamil Nadu bills episode turned it into a flashpoint because the Court’s earlier use of the power touched directly on the constitutional roles of other institutions.

 

Reinforcing this point, the Court said, “It is impermissible for courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a bill, in any manner, before it becomes law. Pertinently, discharge of its role under Article 143 does not constitute ‘judicial adjudication’.”

 

The ruling may shape how future governments, governors and courts negotiate constitutional disagreements—and where the boundaries of “complete justice” truly lie.