Year-end reviews of Supreme Court judgments for 2025-26 — spanning stray-dog management, road safety as a fundamental right, UAPA bail, and benami property disputes — keep tracing back to one recurring phrase: the Court acting to do "complete justice". This is not a single ruling but a pattern across many cases, prompting renewed explanatory commentary on the constitutional provision behind it, Article 142.
Article 142 lets the Supreme Court pass any order necessary for "complete justice" in a pending cause, enforceable across India — a remedial power tied to actual litigation, not a free-standing legislative licence. It differs from Article 141 (binding precedent), Article 136 (special leave to appeal), and Article 32 (direct fundamental-rights remedy), and has no High Court equivalent under Article 226. Its use is disciplined by the basic structure doctrine (Article 368): the Court cannot override statutes or trespass on legislative domain merely on policy disagreement, though critics worry expansive use blurs this line.
Remember: Article 142 = remedy-crafting for a pending case; Article 141 = precedent; Article 136 = gateway appeal; Article 32 = fundamental rights enforcement; Article 129 (court of record/contempt) underwrites enforceability; Article 145 covers Rules of Court. The Privy Council had no comparable "complete justice" power — the Constituent Assembly deliberately created this equitable jurisdiction only for the Supreme Court.