Discuss the scope of Article 142 of the Constitution in the context of the Supreme Court's power to grant 'complete justice.' Illustrate with a recent example.

Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order "necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it," enforceable throughout India [1]. It is an equitable, residuary power meant to bridge the gap where ordinary law falls short of justice.

Scope of the power

• Remedial reach: allows relief beyond the strict letter of statutes — dissolving marriages on irretrievable breakdown, transferring cases, or granting compensation where no statutory route exists.
• Corrective use in criminal justice: has been used to release a convict after prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay in deciding remission, in the Perarivalan case (2022) [3].
• Institutional protection: read with Article 129, it supports the Court's contempt jurisdiction to ensure its orders are obeyed [1].
• Self-imposed limits: in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the Court held that Article 142 cannot supplant substantive statutory law or entrench upon powers vested in other authorities [3].

Recent illustration: the NEET-UG protest case

• Invoking Article 142, the Court in September 2026 quashed FIRs arising from the July 2026 student protests over the alleged NEET-UG paper leak and barred further coercive action — relief no single FIR-by-FIR proceeding could have achieved [2].
• Yet an Executive Magistrate in Greater Noida subsequently issued a peace-bond notice to a Gautam Buddha University student under Section 130 of the BNSS, 2023, which replaced the CrPC's preventive provisions [4]. The CJI questioned the notice; it was withdrawn and disciplinary action initiated [2].
• The episode shows both the power's strength — protecting students' rights under Articles 19 and 21 — and its limitation: enforcement depends on district-level executive compliance.

Article 142 thus functions as the Constitution's conscience-keeper, supplying justice where procedure alone cannot. Its legitimacy rests on sparing, principled use coupled with faithful executive implementation. Codified guidelines on its invocation, alongside sensitisation of magistrates to binding judicial orders, would strengthen both complete justice and the separation of powers.