Discuss the use of Article 142 in election administration. Does it strengthen electoral justice or blur the separation of powers?

Article 142 lets the Supreme Court pass any order needed to do "complete justice". Article 324 gives the Election Commission of India (ECI) superintendence, direction and control over electoral rolls and elections. The Court now uses Article 142 more often in elections. This fills real gaps in remedies, but it also strains the constitutional division of roles.

Use of Article 142 in election administration

• Correcting a tainted result: In Kuldeep Kumar v. UT Chandigarh (2024), the Court found that the presiding officer had deliberately invalidated ballots. It set aside the mayoral result and declared the rightful winner instead of ordering a re-poll [1].
• Protecting the franchise during SIR: In West Bengal's Special Intensive Revision, the Court directed that appellate tribunals' decisions take effect through a supplementary revised electoral roll, for appeals decided by its cut-off dates [2].
• Creating forums: On its direction, tribunals headed by retired Calcutta HC judges were set up to hear about 38 lakh appeals [3].

How it strengthens electoral justice

• Timely remedy: Relief comes before polling day. An election petition filed after results would come too late [2].
• Restoring voters: Wrongly deleted names can return to the rolls, which upholds adult suffrage under Article 326.
• Deterrence: The Chandigarh ruling shows that officials cannot rig the count without consequences [1].

How it blurs separation of powers

• Entering ECI's domain: Preparing rolls is an Article 324 / RPA 1950 function. When the Court designs the procedure, accountability becomes unclear.
• Fragile forums without a statute: Four tribunal judges have resigned, including former Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam. Justice Biswajit Basu called resolving lakhs of cases "a little difficult" [3].
• Partial relief: Only appeals decided in time benefit. Excluded voters whose appeals are still pending gain nothing [2].
• Post-retirement concerns: Justice Basu has also taken a State commission post [3]. The Court itself has warned that tribunals risk becoming "post-retirement havens" [4]. A 2013 parliamentary committee report recorded a ten-year cooling-off proposal [5].

Article 142 has worked as a safety valve where the electoral machinery failed. But ad hoc orders cannot replace institutional design. Parliament should amend the RPA, 1950 to create a standing, time-bound appeal system staffed by serving judicial officers, along with a cooling-off rule for retired judges. The Court would then review instead of administer. This would serve both "complete justice" and free and fair elections, which are part of the Constitution's basic structure.