"Supreme Court Uses Article 142 to Quash Exam Protest FIRs Nationwide"
Article 142
Supreme Court's plenary 'complete justice' power; exclusive to the Supreme Court, not High Courts.
Chilling Effect
deterrent impact of FIR registration on free expression even without conviction.
The right to protest in India is not explicitly named in the Constitution but flows directly from Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(b) (right to assemble peaceably without arms). The state may impose reasonable restrictions under Articles 19(2) and 19(3) on grounds such as public order, sovereignty, and morality, but the Supreme Court has consistently held that such restrictions must be proportionate and narrowly tailored. In Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, the Court reaffirmed that peaceful protest is integral to a functioning democracy and cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.
Article 142 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court a unique plenary power to pass any decree or order necessary to do 'complete justice' in any cause or matter pending before it. Its origins trace to Section 210 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and it appeared in the Draft Constitution as Article 118, adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 27 May 1949 without substantive debate. Because the provision's scope was left entirely open-ended, the Supreme Court has had to develop its own doctrine of when and how to use it across seven decades of case law.
The broader context involves a recurring pattern of First Information Reports (FIRs) being used as instruments of deterrence against protesters. Cases arising from the anti-CAA protests (2019–20) and the farmers' protests (2020–21) saw prolonged legal battles, with many accused spending extended periods in custody before courts intervened. An empirical study by researchers at IIM Ahmedabad examined every case between 1950 and 2023 citing 'Article 142' or 'complete justice', finding 1,579 references and 791 direct invocations, mostly in civil matters — underscoring how central the provision has become to the Court's functioning.
An FIR (First Information Report) is the foundational document that sets the criminal justice process in motion under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure. Courts retain the power to quash FIRs under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) when they are found to be an abuse of process, lack prima facie merit, or when continuing them would cause injustice. Once registered, an FIR can shadow an individual's career, educational prospects, and passport applications even without a conviction — creating what legal scholars call a chilling effect on free expression.
The text of Article 142 is deliberately spare: the Supreme Court may pass such decree or order 'as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.' …
With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following?
Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities.
With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following?
With reference to Article 142 of the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
1.It empowers both the Supreme Court and High Courts to pass orders necessary for complete justice.
2.In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the court held that Article 142 can supplement a statute but cannot supplant it.
3.The provision was adopted by the Constituent Assembly after extensive debate on its scope.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Which of the following pairs of cases and their significance under Article 142 of the Constitution is/are correctly matched?
1.Prem Chand Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962) — Article 142 orders must be consistent with fundamental rights and the law
2.Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) — Article 142 can supplant an existing statutory scheme if justice demands it
3.Bhopal gas tragedy settlement (1989) — Article 142 was used to secure a $470 million payout from Union Carbide
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
Consider the following statements about Article 142 of the Indian Constitution:
1.Its origins can be traced to Section 210 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
2.It was adopted by the Constituent Assembly as Article 118 in the Draft Constitution.
3.An empirical study found that Article 142 was directly invoked in over 1,500 cases between 1950 and 2023.
How many of the above statements are correct?
Assertion (A): The Supreme Court's use of Article 142 to quash thousands of FIRs collectively, without individual scrutiny, has been criticised as supplanting rather than supplementing the statutory scheme.
Reason (R): Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita requires a court to examine whether an offence is made out or whether a case is malicious before quashing an FIR.
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account