With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following?

The correct answer is B. Article 142(1) lets the Supreme Court pass any decree or order needed to do complete justice in a pending matter. The statement says ordinary laws cannot restrict this power, which means the Court is not bound in exercising Article 142 powers by laws Parliament has made. The Court can go beyond statutory limits when justice requires it, as in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991), where it used Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings and settle compensation.

• A is wrong: Article 329 bars courts from interfering with electoral matters, but only in specified ways. Election Commission decisions can still be examined through election petitions and writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32. This has nothing to do with Article 142.
• C is wrong: Financial Emergency under Article 360 requires the President's satisfaction, which must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 74. Ordinary law is not the point here.
• D is wrong: Certain state legislative powers do need Parliament's sanction or concurrence in specific cases, such as Article 249 or Article 252. This is a constitutional arrangement, not a limit set by ordinary law on Article 142.

The core concept is the residual, complete-justice power of the Supreme Court. For Mains, it links to debates on judicial activism and the limits of judicial overreach.

Trap: Candidates confuse Article 142 with general judicial review powers and select A or D because they sound like constitutional limits on authorities.