Article 142: Enforcement of decrees and orders of the Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc

Leading cases

• P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005)The State cannot appropriate seats or enforce its reservation policy in unaided minority or non-minority institutions; such institutions may set their own fair, transparent, merit-based admissions and non-profiteering fees, subject to regulation including the Islamic Academy committees.
• Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. (2025)A court hearing a challenge under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has a limited power to modify an arbitral award, exercisable only in specified circumstances.
• Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023)The Supreme Court can, under Article 142(1), waive the six-month period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act on a settlement, and can dissolve a marriage that has irretrievably broken down even if one spouse opposes.
• Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)The Constitution Bench held that the right to live with dignity under Article 21 includes a dignified process of dying, recognised passive euthanasia and advance medical directives, and laid down guidelines that apply until Parliament legislates.
• Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka (2003)Clarifying T.M.A. Pai, the majority held that unaided professional colleges may fix their own fees subject to no profiteering or capitation fee, and directed State committees under Article 142 to approve fees and supervise admission tests.
• Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998)While punishing an advocate for contempt under Articles 129 and 142, the Supreme Court cannot also suspend his licence to practise, a power vested in the Bar Councils; In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra was overruled to that extent.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991)On review, the Court upheld the US $470 million Bhopal settlement and its Article 142 power to record it, but revived the quashed criminal proceedings and declared the Union of India liable to meet any shortfall in the fund.
• Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P. (1962)Rule 12 of Order XXXV of the Supreme Court Rules, so far as it allowed the Court to demand security for the respondent's costs in Article 32 petitions, was invalid as it impaired the right to move the Court.
• Manish Kumar v. Union of India (2021)The Court upheld the 2020 IBC amendments: the threshold of 100 or ten per cent for allottees and certain financial creditors under Section 7, the deemed withdrawal of pending applications, Explanation II to Section 11, and Section 32A.
• Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)Until Parliament makes an express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Judicial Magistrate may order a person to give a voice sample for the investigation of a crime; this does not violate Article 20(3).
• Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997)The Court struck down Directive No. 4.7(3) of the Single Directive, which required prior sanction before the CBI inquired into senior officers, and issued binding directions under Articles 32 and 142 to insulate investigating agencies.
• Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)Compensation under Articles 32 and 226 for violation of fundamental rights is a public law remedy based on strict liability, to which sovereign immunity does not apply; Orissa was ordered to pay Rs. 1,50,000 for a custodial death.

Showing 12 of 17 judgments in the library on this provision, larger Benches first. Search the judgments

Questions on this article

36 questions in 35 of our papers cite Article 142. Try these from the free papers:

1. 1. In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the Constitution Bench held that, while punishing an advocate for contempt of court:

   A.the Supreme Court may direct the Bar Council of India to strike his name off the roll without any inquiryB.the Supreme Court may, under Article 142, also suspend his licence to practise for a fixed periodC.the Supreme Court cannot suspend his licence, as Article 142 cannot supplant the Advocates Act, 1961D.the Supreme Court may suspend his licence only if the High Court concerned has first recommended suspension
   Show answer

2. 2. In Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019), a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court considered whether a Magistrate may order an accused to give a sample of his voice for investigation. It held that:

   A.until Parliament legislates, a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the power to order a voice sampleB.only the trial Court, and not a Magistrate during investigation, may direct an accused to give a voice sampleC.a voice sample can be taken only with the written consent of the accused, given before a MagistrateD.ordering a voice sample violates Article 20(3), as it compels the accused to be a witness against himself
   Show answer

3. 3. Consider the following statements about the waiver of the period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as explained in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017): 1. The court may consider whether the one-year separation under Section 13B(1) and the six-month period under Section 13B(2) are already over before the first motion. 2. Only the Supreme Court, under Article 142, may dispense with the six-month period. 3. The court may consider whether the parties have genuinely settled their differences, including alimony and custody of any child. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

   A.2 and 3 onlyB.1 and 3 onlyC.1 and 2 onlyD.3 only
   Show answer