Article 142 is a tool for complete justice, not a substitute for legislation. Discuss with reference to recent petitions seeking judicially framed electoral rules.

Article 142 lets the Supreme Court pass any order it needs to do "complete justice" in a case before it. The Court can use it to fill procedural gaps, but not to make law in an area Parliament already governs. Its October 2026 dismissal of a plea for court-framed bypoll rules shows where that line sits [1].

The petition and the gap it targeted

• M. Srinivasan sought a CBI probe after four AIADMK MLAs joined the ruling TVK. He also asked for Article 142 rules barring MLAs who resign from contesting bypolls and recovering the cost of bypolls from them [1].
• The gap is real. An MLA who resigns before being disqualified escapes the Tenth Schedule and can contest again. This route brought down governments in Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh [2].

Article 142 as a tool for complete justice

• Filling gaps: In Union of India v. ADR (2002), the Court made candidates disclose criminal records, assets and education when no law required it [4].
• Vishaka (1997) guidelines stayed in force until Parliament passed a law.
• Legislative inertia: Parties that gain from defections have little reason to reform the law.

Why it cannot substitute for legislation

• Separation of powers: Supreme Court Bar Association (1998) held that Article 142 cannot override substantive law.
• Constitutional text: New grounds of disqualification must come from "law made by Parliament" (Art. 191(1)(e)). Elections fall under Art. 327 and the RP Act, 1951.
• Consistency: In Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil (2019), the Court set aside a Speaker's order barring disqualified MLAs from contesting [3].
• Voter choice: ADR gave voters more information. A bar on contesting takes away their choice, and it would punish MLAs who resign on principle along with those who were bribed.
• Due process: A court-ordered CBI probe needs a prima facie case, because "police" is a State subject.

Way forward

• Extend Art. 164(1B) to MLAs who resign mid-term, so they cannot become ministers until re-elected.
• Take defection cases away from the Speaker, as the Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990) recommended [2].
• Amend the RP Act to deal with the cost of bypolls caused by resignations.

Article 142 is suited to enforcing rights and filling gaps for a time. Deciding who may contest an election is Parliament's job. The Court's restraint protects the separation of powers, a basic feature of the Constitution. Parliament should now close the resign-and-recontest loophole to protect the voter's mandate and free and fair elections.