Can Article 142 of Constitution be invoked to set up court‑supervised arbitral mechanism? Supreme Court to examine

An application has been filed before the Supreme Court urging it to invoke its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to create a court‑supervised, arbitration‑like mechanism for resolving complex factual disputes involving State interests [Ambernath Sahakari Samudayik Shetki Society v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

The application was filed in connection with a petition by the Ambernath Sahakari Samudayik Shetki Society Limited (society). The society has challenged a January 28, 2026 judgment of the Bombay High Court in a land dispute. The case concerns over 200 acres of land in Ambernath which the Maharashtra government intends to use for a medical hub.

The land was allotted to the society in the 1960s for collective farming and tree plantation, but the High Court found that it had been misused for housing, shops and other constructions. The High Court had, therefore, upheld the State’s decision to resume the land and reclaim possession.

This judgment has been challenged before the Supreme Court by the society.

Notably, an intervenor connected to the dispute has now urged the top court to invoke its inherent powers to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution to set up an arbitral mechanism that could quickly resolve the decades-old dispute.

The intervention application was filed by Nihal Charles Rebello. He has pressed for the early conclusion of the litigation, pointing out that the land is earmarked for a proposed medical hub. His counsel argued that the following substantial question of law would arise:

“If in exceptional situations involving complex factual controversies, where common law procedures or writ remedies are rendered incapable of producing effective and expedient dispute resolution, where arbitration mechanism is not provided, whether Article 142 can be invoked by this Hon’ble Court to fill remedial gaps to enable a court-supervised time bound dispute-resolution reference mechanism having arbitral characteristics, particularly when interests of State or any State instrumentality (like MMRDA in the instant case) are also involved?”

A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria yesterday issued notice in the matter.

The Court, however, clarified that the hearing of the main special leave petition (SLP) would not be delayed because of the intervention application.

The matter - including the society’s challenge to the High Court ruling as well as the broader constitutional question flagged by the intervenor - is scheduled to be heard next in August.

Advocates Amol Chitale, Shweta Singh Parihar, Pragya Baghel and Sarthak Sharma appeared for the society.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta with advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Shrirang B. Varma, Bharat Bagla, Aditya Krishna, Samrat Krishnarao Shinde, Pratyush Kalro, Anand Dilip Landge, Sangeeta Nenwani, Revati Pravin Kharde, Shreenivas Patil and Rahul Prakash Pathak appeared for the Maharashtra government.

[Read Order]