Daily Current Affairs 27-May-2026

The Supreme Court in In Re: Phalodi Accident vs. NHAI (2025) took suo motu cognisance of two highway accidents that killed 34 people, declaring the Right to Safe Travel on National Highways a fundamental right under Article 21.

Supreme Court’s Power of Complete Justice

• Extraordinary Constitutional Power: Article 142 authorizes the Supreme Court to issue any decree or order required to ensure “complete justice” in cases before it.
• Safety Valve of the Constitution: It functions as a constitutional safeguard, bridging gaps where ordinary laws or procedures are silent, inadequate, or incapable of providing relief.
• Beyond Procedural Rigidity: Unlike statutory remedies bound by technicalities, Article 142 ensures that substantive justice prevails over procedural hurdles.
• Residuary Nature: This power is inherent to the Supreme Court’s role as the guardian of the Constitution, not conferred by legislation.
• Conditions for Invocation: It is exercised in cases of manifest error or where nonexercise would result in a travesty of justice.

Road Safety Crisis

• National Highways: Only 2% of India’s roads, yet account for 30% of fatalities.
• 2025 Data: ~26,770 deaths in six months, despite an 11% decline from 2024.
• Government Target: Reduce accidents by 50% by 2030 through the 4Es – Education, Engineering, Enforcement, Emergency Medical Services.

Nature of Article 142 Power

• Residuary in nature: Exists where ordinary law is silent or inadequate.
• Conditions: Invoked when manifest error exists or nonexercise would cause injustice.
• Beyond procedure: Ensures justice even if statutes lack remedies.

Judicial Interpretations

• Delhi Judicial Service Assn. vs. State of Gujarat (1991): Article 142 power is of a “different quality” beyond statutory limits.
• Canara Bank vs. Debasis Das (2003): Substantive justice must prevail; natural justice fills gaps.
• Hitesh Bhatnagar vs. Deepa Bhatnagar (2011): Extraordinary care required while exercising this jurisdiction.

Necessity vs. Overreach

• Criticism: Judicial overreach, bypassing laws, encroaching on executive/legislative domain.
• CounterArgument: Judicial activism ensures justice in evolving contexts (e.g., livein relationships, LGBTQ+ rights, environmental crises, digital privacy).
• High Courts: Under Article 226, can deliver justice but not at par with Supreme Court’s plenary powers.

Challenges

• Separation of Powers: Risk of judiciary stepping into policymaking.
• Predictability: Frequent use may create uncertainty in governance.
• Balance: Need to avoid undermining legislative intent while ensuring justice.

Way Forward

• Codify Guidelines: Clear parameters for invoking Article 142 to prevent arbitrariness.
• Strengthen Institutions: Ensure executive and legislature act proactively, reducing reliance on judicial intervention.
• Public Awareness: Promote road safety and accountability alongside judicial directives.
• Judicial Restraint: Exercise Article 142 sparingly, only in cases of manifest injustice.

Conclusion

Article 142 remains the Supreme Court’s extraordinary weapon to deliver complete justice, bridging the gap between law and evolving social realities. While concerns of judicial overreach persist, its judicious use ensures that justice is not denied due to procedural rigidity.