The judiciary’s role in complete justice

Another milestone towards full administration of justice by the Supreme Court of India is its recent judgment enshrining the right to safe travel on National Highways as a fundamental right and declaring it as an integral part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court took suo motu It is aware of two traffic accidents that killed 34 people in November 2025 and has issued far-reaching directives. [In Re: Phalodi Accident vs. National Highways Authority of India and Others (2025)]. The Court made clear that safe, well-maintained and drivable roads are no longer just a policy goal, but a constitutional obligation of the state. It is an alarming fact that although National Highways account for only 2% of roads, they account for 30% of deaths. In 2025, there were around 26,770 deaths on National Highways in India in the first six months alone. The government aims to reduce traffic accidents by 50% by 2030 and has adopted a strategy to achieve this target focusing on strengthening Education, Engineering (roads/vehicles), Enforcement and Emergency Medical Services. Despite deaths on National Highways falling by 11% compared to 2024, these rates are still alarmingly high. These figures must be a contributing factor to the Supreme Court’s decision while exercising its natural authority under Article 142 of the Constitution, which talks about full justice.

Inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the guardian of the Constitution. Therefore, powers are given that can be used in cases where the law is silent or insufficient to redress the complaint. Such powers are not conferred by law but are inherent in its role as the highest court, allowing it to go beyond strict procedural constraints to prevent injustice or abuse of process. Another condition for benefiting from Article 142 is clear error and failure to apply it may lead to a travesty of justice. at the Supreme Court Delhi Judicial Service Association etc. Gujarat State (1991) argued that the power to ensure full justice is at a completely different level and of a different nature. The Court further notes that any restrictions contained in ordinary law cannot constitute a limitation on the constitutional authority of the Court.

Also read: We voice criticism of Indian judiciary

Complete understanding of justice

The relevant question that comes to our mind is whether justice can be lacking. If not, why does the concept of ‘full justice’ appear in paragraph (1) of Article 142 of the Constitution? Another question that may arise is whether the High Courts can provide full justice.

The power to administer full justice is reserve in nature and can be used to ensure compliance with due process. This is an extraordinary jurisdiction, conferred with the implicit trust and belief that it will be exercised by applying the principle of natural justice, that is, the principle of equity. The Court is also aware of its importance and therefore Hitesh Bhatnagar vs Deepa Bhatnagar (2011) state that extraordinary care and caution must be exercised when exercising this authority.

Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to make any order necessary to achieve comprehensive and fair justice, even if existing law or procedural technicalities do not provide a specific solution. This authority acts as a “constitutional safety valve” that fills legal gaps. It is a well-established fact that the Constitution of India gives priority to natural justice over other forms of justice. In a landmark decision, the high court Canara Bank vs Debasis Das (2003) state that the Constitution aims to provide substantive justice, which means the elimination of injustices, and this will be achieved through legal or natural justice. In a situation where legal justice cannot do so, the principles of natural justice must be followed.

Full justice and High Courts

The question of whether the High Courts can fully ensure justice can be answered based on the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision. Anil Kumar Jain vs Maya Jain (2009), the Court held that the powers of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution are not at the same level as the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142. But justice is a broad concept and will always be complete. Therefore, the High Courts can deliver full justice, albeit in a more limited manner, than the Supreme Court, whose inherent powers under Article 142 serve as one of the instruments for implementing the concept of due process in the rapidly changing social, economic, political and value systems within and outside India.

Reason for controversy

The application of Article 142 is often criticized as judicial overreach that undermines the principle of separation of powers. Critics note that the Court bypasses established laws and procedures and may encroach on the purview of the Executive or Legislative Assembly. However, such criticisms do not make much sense. It is true that the implementation of Article 142 has made the judiciary more active. However, judicial activism involves proactive and progressive interpretation of laws or constitutional provisions. Its constitutional purpose is to ensure justice, whether social, economic, political or legal. As we said before, the aim is to ensure financial justice. The problem arises when new and evolving social realities emerge, such as issues surrounding cohabiting relationships or homosexuality, and established laws and procedures fail to provide justice. In such cases, the Supreme Court, as the guardian of the Constitution, must take proactive steps to ensure full justice. That is why such powers are called inherent powers of the Court. In such cases, the Court applies the principle of natural justice, which is an integral part of the entire constitutional structure of India.

(CBP Srivastava is Head of Center for Applied Research in Governance, Delhi)