Supreme Court to Consider Article 142 for Court-Supervised Arbitration
The Supreme Court of India is set to deliberate on a significant legal proposition concerning its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The question at hand is whether these powers can be employed to establish a court-supervised arbitration mechanism to resolve intricate disputes involving state interests. This matter arises from the case Ambernath Sahakari Samudayik Shetki Society v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The case originates from a petition filed by the Ambernath Sahakari Samudayik Shetki Society Limited, challenging a decision by the Bombay High Court dated January 28, 2026. The High Court’s ruling pertains to over 200 acres of land in Ambernath, initially allotted to the society in the 1960s for collective farming and tree plantation. However, the court found that the land was misused for unauthorized constructions, leading to the state’s decision to reclaim it for a proposed medical hub.
In response to the High Court’s judgment, the society approached the Supreme Court. In a noteworthy development, Nihal Charles Rebello, an intervenor in the case, has urged the Apex Court to invoke Article 142. Rebello’s application seeks the creation of an arbitration-like mechanism to expedite the resolution of the long-standing dispute, emphasizing the land’s significance for the medical hub project.
Rebello’s legal counsel argued that the Supreme Court should consider whether Article 142 can be applied to address complex factual disputes where traditional legal remedies are ineffective. The aim is to establish a court-supervised, time-bound dispute resolution process with arbitral characteristics, especially when state interests, such as those of the Maharashtra government and the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), are involved.
The Bench, comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria, has issued a notice in the matter, emphasizing that the intervention application will not delay the hearing of the main special leave petition (SLP). The Supreme Court is scheduled to revisit the case, including the society’s challenge to the High Court’s decision and the broader constitutional question raised by the intervenor, in August.
Advocates Amol Chitale, Shweta Singh Parihar, Pragya Baghel, and Sarthak Sharma are representing the society. On the other side, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, along with a team of advocates, is appearing for the Maharashtra government.
The legal community is keenly observing this case as the Supreme Court’s decision could set a precedent for the use of Article 142 in resolving disputes involving state interests and complex factual scenarios.
