Article 142 lets the Supreme Court do literally anything it wants, ignoring all other laws.

Courts have held (e.g., Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 1998) that this power cannot be used to override clear statutory provisions or fundamental rights; it fills gaps and delivers fairness, but doesn't grant unlimited authority.

Article 142 is only about contempt of court.

Contempt and compelling attendance/document production is only clause (2); clause (1), the 'complete justice' power, is broader and used in matters like compensation, marriage disputes, and complex multi-party settlements.

The Constitution of India

Article 142

Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc

(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.§

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.§

Why this exists

The framers wanted the Supreme Court to never be helpless in the face of a genuine injustice just because ordinary law had a gap or a rigid procedural rule stood in the way. Borrowing from ideas of equity in common-law systems, Article 142 was designed as a safety valve, letting the Court craft practical, complete remedies in extraordinary cases, while Article 142(2) ensures it can compel cooperation and protect its own authority throughout the country.

How courts read it

In the Bhopal gas tragedy litigation (Union Carbide Corp v. Union of India), the Court used Article 142 to fashion a compensation settlement going beyond what ordinary tort law provided. In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the Court clarified that this power cannot be used to override express statutory provisions, such as rules on who can practice law, showing that 'complete justice' has limits and cannot contradict existing law. More recently, in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023), a Constitution Bench held that the Court can grant divorce by mutual consent directly under Article 142, skipping the usual waiting period in family law, in appropriate cases. The Ayodhya title dispute (M. Siddiq, 2019) also saw the Court invoke Article 142 to shape final relief where ordinary property law alone could not resolve the dispute fairly.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Article 142 lets the Supreme Court do literally anything it wants, ignoring all other laws.
Fact: Courts have held (e.g., Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 1998) that this power cannot be used to override clear statutory provisions or fundamental rights; it fills gaps and delivers fairness, but doesn't grant unlimited authority.
Myth: Article 142 is only about contempt of court.
Fact: Contempt and compelling attendance/document production is only clause (2); clause (1), the 'complete justice' power, is broader and used in matters like compensation, marriage disputes, and complex multi-party settlements.