Supreme Court of India

About

The Supreme Court of India is the highest constitutional court and the apex judicial authority of the country. Established under Part V (Chapter IV) of the Constitution, it safeguards constitutional supremacy, protects Fundamental Rights, and ensures that every organ of the State functions within the limits prescribed by the Constitution.

As the final interpreter of the Constitution, the Supreme Court maintains the rule of law, resolves disputes between different levels of government, and acts as the ultimate guardian of democracy and constitutional governance in India.

Key Features

• The Supreme Court was established on 26 January 1950, simultaneously with the commencement of the Constitution of India.
• It replaced the Federal Court of India and abolished the appellate jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, thereby making India's judicial system completely independent.
• It occupies the highest position in India's Integrated Judicial System, ensuring uniform interpretation and application of laws throughout the country.
• It acts as the guardian of the Constitution by protecting its basic principles and preventing unconstitutional actions by the Legislature and the Executive.
• It serves as the protector of Fundamental Rights by directly entertaining petitions under Article 32 whenever such rights are violated.
• It functions as the highest court of appeal in constitutional, civil and criminal matters, making its decisions final and binding.
• It exercises the power of Judicial Review, enabling it to strike down laws or executive actions that violate the Constitution.
• It has been recognised as a Court of Record under Article 129, and therefore its records possess evidentiary value and it can punish for contempt of court.

Historical Background

The Supreme Court did not emerge suddenly after Independence; rather, it evolved gradually through several judicial reforms introduced during the British period. Each constitutional and legislative development strengthened India's judicial institutions and ultimately led to the establishment of the present Supreme Court in 1950.

Regulating Act, 1773

The Regulating Act, 1773 laid the foundation of the modern judicial system in India by creating the first Supreme Court under the authority of the British Crown.

• The Act established the Supreme Court at Fort William, Calcutta, which started functioning in 1774.
• It was the first King's Court in India and administered justice according to English law.
• The Court exercised civil, criminal, admiralty and ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the Presidency of Bengal.

Supreme Courts in Presidency Towns

After the establishment of the Calcutta Supreme Court, similar courts were created in other Presidency towns to strengthen judicial administration.

• A Supreme Court was established at Madras in 1801 to administer justice in the Madras Presidency.
• A Supreme Court was established at Bombay in 1823 to extend the judicial system to western India.
• These courts functioned independently and often came into conflict with the Company's own judicial institutions because of overlapping jurisdictions.

Indian High Courts Act, 1861

The British Government reorganised the judicial system through the Indian High Courts Act, 1861 to remove the confusion caused by parallel judicial institutions.

• The Act abolished both the Supreme Courts and the Sadar Adalats, thereby ending the dual judicial system.
• It established High Courts in the Presidency towns by merging the powers of both institutions.
• The High Court’s became the highest judicial authorities within their respective provinces.

Government of India Act, 1935

The Government of India Act, 1935 introduced a federal judicial institution for British India for the first time.

• The Act established the Federal Court of India, which started functioning on 1 October 1937.
• The Federal Court decided disputes between the Centre and the Provinces and interpreted constitutional provisions.
• Appeals from the Federal Court could still be filed before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, which remained the highest appellate authority.

Establishment of the Supreme Court

The Constitution of India replaced the colonial judicial framework with an independent constitutional court after Independence.

• The Supreme Court of India came into existence on 26 January 1950, the day the Constitution came into force.
• It replaced the Federal Court of India as the highest judicial authority in the country.
• It also abolished the appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Council, thereby establishing complete judicial sovereignty for India.
• The Supreme Court was formally inaugurated on 28 January 1950 in the Chamber of Princes, Parliament House, New Delhi.

Composition of the Supreme Court

The Constitution provides for a Supreme Court consisting of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and such number of other judges as Parliament may prescribe by law. Instead of fixing the number of judges in the Constitution, the framers empowered Parliament to revise the judicial strength according to the growing needs of the justice delivery system.

Constitutional Basis

• Article 124(1) provides for the establishment and composition of the Supreme Court of India.
• The Constitution authorises Parliament to determine the number of judges through legislation instead of prescribing a fixed strength.
• This flexible approach enables the judicial strength to be increased whenever the volume of litigation or constitutional work rises.
• Originally At the commencement of the Constitution in 1950, the Supreme Court consisted of one Chief Justice and seven other judges.

• At present, the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court is 34 judges, including the Chief Justice of India.

Constitutional Provisions Relating to the Supreme Court

The Constitution deals with the Supreme Court under Part V (The Union), Chapter IV, comprising Articles 124 to 147. These provisions collectively define the Court's composition, appointment of judges, jurisdiction, powers, independence and administrative framework.

Appointment of Supreme Court Judges

The appointment of Supreme Court judges is one of the most significant constitutional processes because it directly affects the independence and credibility of the judiciary. Although the Constitution vests the power of appointment in the President of India, judicial interpretation has evolved a system in which the judiciary enjoys primacy through the Collegium System.

Constitutional Provision

• Article 124(2) provides that every judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal.
• The Constitution originally required the President to appoint judges after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and other judges considered necessary.
• The meaning of the word "consultation" was subsequently interpreted by the Supreme Court through a series of landmark judgments, resulting in the present Collegium System.

Appointment of the Chief Justice of India

The Constitution does not prescribe any specific procedure for appointing the Chief Justice of India. Therefore, a constitutional convention has evolved over time to ensure fairness, stability and judicial independence.

• The senior-most judge of the Supreme Court is ordinarily appointed as the Chief Justice of India.
• This convention is known as the Convention of Seniority, and it has been consistently followed since 1978.
• The seniority convention minimises executive discretion and strengthens the independence of the judiciary.

Exceptions to the Seniority Convention

• In 1973, Justice A.N. Ray was appointed Chief Justice by superseding three senior judges after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment.
• In 1977, Justice M.H. Beg was appointed Chief Justice by superseding Justice H.R. Khanna, who had delivered the famous dissenting opinion in the ADM Jabalpur Case.
• These supersession controversies were widely criticised because they were perceived as executive interference in judicial appointments.
• Since 1978, the seniority convention has been followed without exception.

Appointment of Other Supreme Court Judges

The appointment of other judges follows a structured consultative process intended to preserve judicial independence while ensuring merit-based selection.

• The President of India formally appoints every judge of the Supreme Court.
• The recommendations for appointment are made through the Collegium System, which enjoys judicial primacy.
• The Central Government processes the recommendations before forwarding them to the President for appointment.
• Once appointed, every judge assumes office after taking the prescribed oath before the President or a person authorised by him.

Collegium System

The Collegium System is a judicially evolved mechanism for appointing and transferring judges of the higher judiciary. Although it is not mentioned in the Constitution, it has become an integral part of India's judicial appointment process through Supreme Court judgments.

Composition of the Collegium

• The Supreme Court Collegium consists of the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
• The Collegium collectively evaluates candidates on the basis of merit, integrity, competence and judicial experience.
• Its recommendations are forwarded to the Central Government for further processing.

Significance of the Collegium System

• The Collegium reduces executive influence over judicial appointments and thereby strengthens judicial independence.
• It seeks to ensure that appointments are made primarily on the basis of judicial merit and professional competence.
• It preserves the constitutional principle of separation of powers by giving primacy to the judiciary in selecting its own judges.

Qualifications of Supreme Court Judges

The Constitution prescribes certain minimum qualifications to ensure that only persons possessing adequate legal knowledge, judicial experience and constitutional understanding are appointed as judges of the Supreme Court. These qualifications are mentioned under Article 124(3) of the Constitution.

Constitutional Provision

• Article 124(3) lays down the qualifications required for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
• The prescribed qualifications ensure that only experienced members of the legal profession are elevated to the highest constitutional court.

Qualifications

• A person must be a citizen of India to be eligible for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
• A person must have served as a Judge of one or more High Courts for at least five years in succession.
• A person may also be appointed if he has practised as an Advocate of one or more High Courts for at least ten years in succession.
• A person who is considered a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President may also be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court.

Oath or Affirmation of Supreme Court Judges

Before assuming office, every Judge of the Supreme Court is required to take an oath or affirmation under Article 124(6) in the form prescribed in the Third Schedule of the Constitution. The oath is administered by the President of India or a person authorised by him, affirming the judge's commitment to uphold the Constitution and perform duties with impartiality and integrity.

While taking the oath, a Supreme Court Judge solemnly affirms that he or she shall—

• Bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India, thereby upholding the constitutional order.
• Uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, while performing judicial functions.
• Duly and faithfully discharge the duties of the office, to the best of his or her ability, knowledge and judgment.
• Perform judicial duties without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, thereby ensuring complete impartiality.
• Uphold the Constitution and the laws, while delivering justice in accordance with constitutional principles.

Tenure of Supreme Court Judges

The Constitution provides security of tenure to Supreme Court judges so that they can discharge their judicial responsibilities without external pressure or political influence. Security of tenure is one of the most important safeguards for maintaining judicial independence.

• The tenure of Supreme Court judges is governed by Article 124 of the Constitution.
• A judge continues in office until attaining the age prescribed by the Constitution unless he resigns or is removed earlier.

• A Judge of the Supreme Court holds office until attaining the age of 65 years.
• A Judge may resign from office at any time by submitting a written resignation to the President of India.
• A Judge may be removed from office only through the constitutional procedure prescribed for impeachment on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

Note: The retirement age of Supreme Court Judges is 65 years, whereas High Court Judges retire at the age of 62 years.

Salaries and Allowances of Supreme Court Judges

The Constitution guarantees financial security to Supreme Court judges to ensure that they remain free from financial or political influence. Adequate salaries and constitutional protection of service conditions strengthen judicial independence.

• Article 125 deals with the salaries, allowances and privileges of Supreme Court judges.
• Parliament determines the salaries and allowances through legislation from time to time.

• The salaries and allowances of Supreme Court judges are charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India, and therefore they are not subject to annual parliamentary vote.
• The service conditions of judges cannot be varied to their disadvantage after appointment, except during a Financial Emergency under Article 360.
• Judges are also entitled to pension, official residence, medical facilities, staff and other post-retirement benefits as provided by law.

Note: Since salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, Parliament cannot reduce them through the ordinary budgetary process.

Acting Chief Justice (Article 126)

Whenever the office of the Chief Justice of India becomes vacant or the Chief Justice is unable to perform official duties, the Constitution permits the appointment of an Acting Chief Justice to ensure uninterrupted functioning of the Court.

• Article 126 empowers the President of India to appoint an Acting Chief Justice.
• The appointment is made when the office of the Chief Justice falls vacant or the Chief Justice is unable to discharge official functions.
• The Acting Chief Justice performs all administrative and judicial functions of the Chief Justice until a regular Chief Justice assumes office.

Ad hoc Judges (Article 127)

The Constitution permits the temporary appointment of High Court judges as Ad hoc Judges whenever the strength of the Supreme Court becomes insufficient to hold or continue its sittings.

• Article 127 empowers the Chief Justice of India to appoint an Ad hoc Judge with the prior consent of the President.
• An Ad hoc Judge is appointed only when there is no quorum of Supreme Court judges.
• Only a qualified High Court Judge can be appointed as an Ad hoc Judge.
• During the period of appointment, the Ad hoc Judge enjoys all powers, jurisdiction and privileges of a Supreme Court Judge.

Retired Judges (Article 128)

The Constitution also allows retired judges to participate in the proceedings of the Supreme Court whenever their experience is required in the larger interest of justice.

• Article 128 empowers the Chief Justice of India to request a retired Supreme Court or High Court Judge to sit and act as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
• Such appointment can be made only with the prior consent of the President.
• A retired Judge is free to accept or decline the request made by the Chief Justice.
• While sitting in the Supreme Court, a retired Judge exercises the same jurisdiction, powers and privileges as a regular Judge.

Removal of Supreme Court Judges

The Constitution provides a rigorous procedure for the removal of Supreme Court judges to ensure that judicial independence is not compromised by political pressure. Consequently, a judge cannot be removed by the Executive alone and can be removed only through a special parliamentary process known as impeachment.

This procedure strikes a balance between judicial accountability and judicial independence by making removal possible only in exceptional circumstances involving serious misconduct or incapacity.

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 124(4) lays down the constitutional procedure for the removal of a Supreme Court Judge.
• Article 124(5) empowers Parliament to regulate the detailed procedure for investigation and removal.
• The detailed procedure has been prescribed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

Grounds for Removal

The Constitution permits the removal of a Supreme Court Judge only on two specific grounds.

• A Judge may be removed for proved misbehaviour, which includes serious misconduct inconsistent with judicial office.
• A Judge may also be removed for incapacity, where physical or mental inability prevents the proper discharge of judicial duties.

Procedure for Removal of a Supreme Court Judge

The removal process involves both Parliament and the President, ensuring that no single institution can remove a judge on its own.

1: Notice of Motion

• A removal motion may be introduced in either House of Parliament.
• The motion must be signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha.

2: Admission of Motion

• The Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha may admit or reject the motion after examining its merits.

3: Constitution of Inquiry Committee

If the motion is admitted, a three-member Inquiry Committee is constituted to investigate the allegations.

The Committee consists of—

• A Judge of the Supreme Court.
• A Chief Justice of a High Court.
• One Distinguished Jurist.

4: Investigation

• The Committee conducts a detailed inquiry into the allegations.
• The concerned Judge is given a full opportunity to present evidence and defend himself or herself.
• The Committee submits its findings to the Presiding Officer of the concerned House.

5: Parliamentary Approval

If the Committee finds the Judge guilty, the removal motion is taken up for voting in both Houses of Parliament.

The motion must be passed—

• By a majority of the total membership of each House; and
• By a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting in each House.

Both conditions must be satisfied separately in each House.

6: Order of Removal

• After both Houses pass the motion, it is presented to the President of India.
• The President issues an order removing the Judge from office.
• The Judge stands removed only after the Presidential order is issued.

Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968

The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 provides the procedural framework for investigating allegations against judges before Parliament considers their removal.

• The Act prescribes the manner in which a removal motion is initiated.
• The Act provides for the constitution of a three-member Inquiry Committee.
• The Act ensures that the Judge concerned receives a fair opportunity to defend himself or herself.
• The Act prevents Parliament from proceeding with the removal motion unless the Committee finds the Judge guilty.

Note: Although several impeachment motions have been initiated, no Supreme Court Judge has been removed through impeachment since the Constitution came into force.

Important Instances

• Justice V. Ramaswami (1993): He became the first Supreme Court Judge against whom impeachment proceedings reached Parliament. The motion failed because the ruling party abstained from voting, despite the Inquiry Committee finding him guilty of financial irregularities.
• Justice Soumitra Sen (2011) (High Court Judge): The Rajya Sabha passed the removal motion. He resigned before the Lok Sabha could complete the process.
• Justice Dipak Misra (2018): A removal notice was submitted in the Rajya Sabha. The Chairman rejected the notice at the admission stage.

Independence of the Supreme Court

• Judicial independence is a basic feature of the Constitution and an essential condition for protecting democracy, Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law. The Constitution, therefore, incorporates several institutional safeguards to ensure that judges can discharge their duties without fear, favour or external influence.

Constitutional Safeguards for Judicial Independence

• Security of Tenure
• Security of Service Conditions
• Financial Independence
• Independent Appointment Process
• Fixed Retirement Age
• Power to Punish for Contempt
• Administrative Independence
• Separation from the Executive
• Restriction on Post-Retirement Legal Practice

Supreme Court Jurisdiction

• The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court refers to its constitutional authority to hear and decide different categories of cases. It exercises Original, Writ, Appellate, Advisory, and Review Jurisdiction, enabling it to protect the Constitution, safeguard Fundamental Rights, and ensure uniform interpretation of laws across India.

Original Jurisdiction: The Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court empowers it to hear certain disputes directly without the matter first being decided by a lower court. Since such disputes generally involve constitutional or federal issues, they are brought directly before the Supreme Court.

Constitutional Provision

• Article 131 confers the Original Jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court.
• The jurisdiction is exclusive, meaning that such disputes cannot ordinarily be decided by any other court.

Disputes Covered under Article 131

The Supreme Court directly hears disputes involving—

• The Government of India and one or more States.
• The Government of India and one or more States on one side and one or more States on the other side.
• Two or more States.

Conditions for Exercising Original Jurisdiction

• The dispute must involve a question of law or fact.
• The dispute must involve the existence or extent of a legal right.
• The dispute must arise between the parties specified under Article 131.

Matters Not Covered

The Original Jurisdiction does not extend to certain categories of disputes.

• Disputes arising out of pre-Constitution treaties, agreements or covenants are excluded where the Constitution so provides.
• Matters specifically assigned to other constitutional authorities are not covered under Article 131.
• Ordinary disputes between private individuals cannot be filed under the Original Jurisdiction.

Writ Jurisdiction

• The Writ Jurisdiction empowers the Supreme Court to protect Fundamental Rights by issuing constitutional remedies against unlawful actions of public authorities. This jurisdiction makes the Supreme Court the ultimate protector of citizens' constitutional rights.
• The Supreme Court has the constitutional power to issue writs such as Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto for the enforcement and protection of the Fundamental Rights of individuals.
• Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and, being itself a Fundamental Right, enables citizens to directly approach the Court for their protection.

Supreme Court vs High Court (Writ Jurisdiction)

Appellate Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court functions as the highest court of appeal in India. It hears appeals against the judgments of High Courts in constitutional, civil and criminal matters to ensure uniform interpretation of laws throughout the country.

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 132 – Appeals in Constitutional Cases.
• Article 133 – Appeals in Civil Cases.
• Article 134 – Appeals in Criminal Cases.
• Article 136 – Special Leave to Appeal.

Constitutional Appeals (Article 132): The Supreme Court hears appeals involving substantial questions relating to the interpretation of the Constitution.

• The appeal can be filed only after the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial constitutional question.
• The Supreme Court finally decides the constitutional issue, and its interpretation becomes binding on all courts.

Civil Appeals (Article 133): The Constitution permits appeals against civil judgments of High Courts under specified conditions.

• A civil appeal lies when the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance.
• The High Court must also certify that the question deserves to be decided by the Supreme Court.

Criminal Appeals (Article 134): The Supreme Court also hears appeals in important criminal cases.

A criminal appeal generally lies where—

• The High Court has reversed an order of acquittal and awarded a death sentence.
• The High Court has withdrawn a case for trial before itself and awarded a death sentence.
• The High Court certifies that the case is fit for appeal before the Supreme Court.

Special Leave Petition (SLP) – Article 136: Article 136 confers an extraordinary discretionary power upon the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal against the judgment of any court or tribunal in India.

Salient Features

• The power under Article 136 is entirely discretionary.
• It can be exercised in both civil and criminal matters.
• It can be invoked even where no ordinary right of appeal exists.
• It applies to decisions of any court or tribunal, except those constituted under laws relating to the Armed Forces.

Advisory Jurisdiction: The Constitution empowers the President of India to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on important questions of law or public importance. This jurisdiction enables the Executive to obtain constitutional guidance without initiating adversarial litigation. Article 143 provides the Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Important Provisions

• The President of India may refer any question of law or fact that is of public importance to the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court may examine the reference and submit its opinion to the President.
• The opinion of the Supreme Court is advisory and not binding upon the President.
• The Supreme Court may decline to answer a Presidential Reference if it considers the issue inappropriate for advisory opinion.

Review Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has the power to review its own judgments so that an apparent error may be corrected and justice is not defeated. This power balances the principle of finality of judgments with the need to rectify exceptional mistakes. Article 137 empowers the Supreme Court to review its own judgments and orders.

Salient Features

• A review petition can be filed only on limited grounds recognised by law.
• Review is generally permitted where there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
• A review is ordinarily decided by the same Bench that delivered the original judgment.
• The power of review is exercised sparingly to maintain certainty in judicial decisions.

Curative Jurisdiction: The Curative Jurisdiction is a judicial innovation developed by the Supreme Court to prevent miscarriage of justice in exceptional cases. It is available only after the dismissal of a review petition. The Curative Petition was evolved in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002).

Salient Features

• A Curative Petition is entertained only in rare and exceptional circumstances.
• It can be filed only after the Review Petition has been dismissed.
• The petitioner must establish that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice.
• The petition is first considered by the three senior-most judges and the judges who delivered the original judgment, wherever possible.

Judicial Review: Judicial Review is the power of the Supreme Court to examine the constitutional validity of laws and executive actions. It acts as one of the most important constitutional safeguards against arbitrary exercise of governmental power.

o After examining its constitutional validity, the Supreme Court may invalidate any law or action that is found to be ultra vires the Constitution.

FAQs

Q1. Which Article establishes the Supreme Court of India?
Ans. Article 124 provides for the establishment and composition of the Supreme Court of India.

Q2. Who appoints the judges of the Supreme Court?
Ans. The President of India appoints the judges of the Supreme Court under Article 124(2) based on the recommendations of the Collegium System.

Q3. What is the retirement age of a Supreme Court Judge?
Ans. A Judge of the Supreme Court retires at the age of 65 years.

Q4. Which Article empowers the Supreme Court to enforce Fundamental Rights through writs?
Ans. Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

Q5. Why is the Supreme Court called the guardian of the Constitution?
Ans. The Supreme Court safeguards the Constitution by exercising Judicial Review, protecting Fundamental Rights, and ensuring that laws and executive actions remain consistent with constitutional provisions.