How does the Supreme Court's power under Article 142 enable it to act as a guardian of constitutional morality in cases of ethnic conflict and state failure? Illustrate with the Manipur case.

Q. How does the Supreme Court's power under Article 142 enable it to act as a guardian of constitutional morality in cases of ethnic conflict and state failure? Illustrate with the Manipur case. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for "complete justice" in a matter before it [1]. Where ethnic conflict paralyses ordinary administration, this plenary power lets the Court uphold constitutional morality — rights, accountability and impartial process above majoritarian or political convenience.

How Article 142 serves constitutional morality - Remedy beyond statute: read with Article 32, it lets the Court fashion relief where no statutory machinery exists or the existing one has collapsed [1]. - Institutional oversight: appointment of judicial committees and continuing mandamus with periodic compliance reporting, converting rights into supervised outcomes. - Insulating the process: transfer of trials to a neutral forum, reinforced by Article 139A and Section 406 CrPC/BNSS [1]. - Evidentiary integrity: directing independent forensic examination and receiving findings in sealed cover.

Illustration: the Manipur case (2023 onwards) - Victim-centric oversight: on 7 August 2023 the Court constituted a three-member committee of former women High Court judges headed by Justice (retd.) Gita Mittal to supervise relief, rehabilitation and compensation [2]. - Fair-trial protection: CBI-probed cases, including the sexual-assault cases, were transferred to designated judges in Assam with trial at Guwahati to secure victim and witness safety [3]. - Accountability of high office: finding that only select clippings of the audio allegedly implicating then Chief Minister N. Biren Singh had been sent for testing, the Bench directed the full 2-hour-36-minute recording to the National Forensic Sciences University — a statutory institution of national importance [4] — for voice comparison, report in sealed cover [5].

Limits Article 142 cannot override express statutory provisions; sealed-cover practice sits uneasily with open justice; and the Court remains dependent on executive candour — delayed and selective disclosure, and NFSU's finding of alteration, show that judicial monitoring cannot replace the Union's own duty under Article 355 [1].

Article 142 thus converts constitutional morality from precept into enforceable process. Its sustainable use lies in time-bound monitoring, statutorily backed victim-compensation and forensic autonomy, so that the executive discharges its duties and the Court's extraordinary power remains a guarantee of last resort rather than routine governance.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. The Constitution of India, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice — Articles 142, 32, 139A and 355 2. SC sets up three-member committee of former women HC judges on relief and rehabilitation in violence-affected Manipur, News on AIR (Prasar Bharati) — Justice Gita Mittal committee, 7 August 2023 3. SC transfers all CBI cases pertaining to Manipur violence to a set of designated judges in Assam, News on AIR (Prasar Bharati) — transfer of trials for victim and witness safety 4. The National Forensic Sciences University Act, 2020, India Code — NFSU as an institution of national importance 5. Supreme Court of India, orders in the Kuki Organisation for Human Rights Trust petition (Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, 2026) — direction to forward the full audio to NFSU, voice comparison and sealed-cover report