Judiciary- 1 | Indian Polity for UPSC CSE PDF Download

Independence of Judges 

The Constitution of India ensures the independence of Supreme Court Judges through various provisions, which are as follows:

Appointment Process

• The appointment of a Supreme Court Judge, although formally made by the President of India on the advice of the Council of Ministers, is safeguarded from pure political influence. This is achieved by requiring the President to consult the Chief Justice of India before making the appointment.

Removal of Judges

• A Supreme Court Judge cannot be removed by the President except through a joint address by both Houses of Parliament. This process requires a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting in each House. The grounds for removal include proved misbehavior or incapacity of the Judge, as outlined in Article 124(4) of the Constitution.

Salary and Financial Security

• The Constitution fixes the salaries of Supreme Court Judges and ensures that these salaries cannot be reduced to the disadvantage of a Judge during their term of office. The only exception to this rule is during a financial emergency, as provided in Article 360.

Funding and Administrative Independence

• The administrative expenses of the Supreme Court, including the salaries and allowances of the Judges and staff, are charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India. This means that these expenses are not subject to a vote in Parliament, as stated in Article 146(3).

Conduct of Judges

• The conduct of a Supreme Court Judge (or a High Court Judge) cannot be discussed in Parliament, except in the context of a motion for an address to the President for the removal of the Judge. This provision protects the dignity and independence of the judiciary.

Post-Retirement Restrictions

• After retirement, a Judge of the Supreme Court is prohibited from pleading or acting in any Court or before any authority within the territory of India. This restriction helps maintain the integrity and independence of the judicial system.

Original Jurisdiction

Original jurisdiction refers to the authority of the Supreme Court to hear and decide cases at the first instance, particularly when the parties involved are constituent units of the federal structure. The Supreme Court has this jurisdiction in disputes where the parties are:

1. The Government of India and one or more states;
2. The Government of India and one or more states against another state;
3. Two or more states.

Disputes involving questions of law or fact fall under the original jurisdiction of the Court. However, this jurisdiction does not include cases like:

• A private individual versus the state;
• Disputes related to interstate rivers;
• Matters referred to the Finance Commission.

These types of disputes can be referred to the Supreme Court by the President for advisory opinions.

Enforcement of Fundamental Rights

The Supreme Court has the original jurisdiction to enforce fundamental rights as per Article 32 of the Constitution. It is empowered to issue writs in cases where these rights are infringed. In this capacity, the Supreme Court acts as the guardian and protector of fundamental rights.

Appellate Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court serves as the final appellate tribunal in the country and exercises appellate jurisdiction in various matters, including constitutional, civil, and criminal cases.

1. Appeal in Constitutional Matters

An appeal can be made against any judgment, decree, or final order of a High Court in constitutional matters, regardless of whether the proceedings are civil, criminal, or otherwise. However, the High Court must certify that the case involves a substantial question of law.

To expedite the appeal process, the High Court grants the certificate either on its own motion or at the oral request of the aggrieved party immediately after the judgment is delivered. The following three conditions must be met for the High Court to grant the certificate:

1. The order appealed against must be based on the judgment.
2. The case must involve a question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution.
3. The question of constitutional interpretation must be a legal question.

The determination of what constitutes a 'substantial' question is left to the Court. If there is an existing Supreme Court judgment on the matter, the Court may refuse to certify the case. The Supreme Court may also decline to hear the appeal if it finds the appeal incompetent, or it may resolve the contentious issue.

In the appeal, the appellant is limited to challenging only the aspects specified in the High Court's certificate. However, if the appeal is made under the Supreme Court's special leave jurisdiction due to a miscarriage of justice in the High Court trial, the appellant may raise additional issues.

2. Appeal in Civil Cases

The Supreme Court can hear appeals from any judgment, decree, or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court if the High Court is satisfied that:

1. The case involves a substantial question of public importance.
2. In the opinion of the High Court, the question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.

In appeals under this jurisdiction, new grounds cannot be raised. Grounds that were not presented before the lower courts cannot be introduced in the Supreme Court. Additionally, no appeal can be made to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree, or final order of a single judge of a High Court.

3. Appeal in Criminal Cases

According to the relevant provision, an appeal can be made to the Supreme Court from a judgment, final order, or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court. This appeal can be made with or without the certificate of the High Court.

Without Certification

An appeal to the Supreme Court without certification is allowed if the High Court has:

1. Reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced them to death; or
2. Withdrawn from the trial in a case where a subordinate court has convicted the accused and sentenced them to death.

The Supreme Court Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970, extends the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction in these cases to include verdicts involving imprisonment for life or for a term of not less than 10 years. However, if the High Court has reversed the order of conviction and acquitted the accused, no appeal lies to the Supreme Court.

With Certification

An appeal to the Supreme Court with certification in a criminal case is at the discretion of the High Court. Generally, the certificate is granted when exceptional circumstances exist.

Appeal by Special Leave

Under the relevant provision, the Supreme Court has the authority to grant special leave to appeal at its discretion from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order made by any court or tribunal in the country. However, courts or tribunals established under laws related to the armed forces are excluded from this provision.

In appeals under this provision, the Supreme Court does not permit the appellant to raise new pleas for the first time. In criminal cases, special leave to appeal is granted only when special and exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.

Advisory Jurisdiction

According to the relevant provision, the Supreme Court can offer advice to the Government when requested. The President may seek the Court's opinion when:

1. A question of law or fact has arisen or is likely to arise;
2. The question is of such public importance that obtaining the Supreme Court's opinion is expedient.

The reference made under this provision is considered an opinion rather than a judicial pronouncement. The President is not obligated to accept the Court's opinion, and the Supreme Court is not compelled to provide an opinion either. Under the specific clause, the President may refer matters excluded from the Supreme Court's jurisdiction for opinion. The Court is bound to provide its opinion in such cases.

In the Kerala Education Bill Case (1958), the Supreme Court established principles for advisory jurisdiction, including the Court's discretion to refuse to express an opinion on referred questions and the President's authority to decide what questions to refer.

In the Special Courts Bill case (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that its advisory jurisdiction opinions are binding on all courts in India. The Supreme Court's views expressed in advisory jurisdiction are binding on all Indian courts, but the Court is not bound by its own decisions and may reverse previous judgments when appropriate.

Power of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court holds several significant powers, which include:

• Power to Review Its Judgement
• Power of Judicial Review
• Ancillary Power
• Power to Withdraw and Transfer Cases
• Federal Courts' Jurisdiction

Power to Review Its Judgement

The Supreme Court has the explicit authority to review its own judgments under the following circumstances:

• Discovery of New Evidence: If new and significant evidence comes to light.
• Errors on the Face of Law: In cases of obvious mistakes or errors in the legal principles applied.
• Any Other Sufficient Reason: For any other valid reason deemed sufficient by the Court.

Power of Judicial Review

The Supreme Court possesses the authority to assess the constitutionality of legislative enactments. This power allows the Court to declare a law invalid if it contradicts fundamental rights, as stipulated in the Constitution. The Court is empowered to review laws passed by both the Union and State legislatures. In the landmark Minerva Mills case, the Supreme Court affirmed that judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution.

Ancillary Power

Parliament has the authority to bestow supplementary powers upon the Supreme Court through legislation. These supplementary powers are intended to facilitate the effective execution of the Court's assigned functions. However, such powers must not contradict the existing provisions governing the Court's operations.

Power to Withdraw and Transfer Cases

This power allows the Supreme Court to withdraw cases from one or more High Courts and adjudicate them if it finds that the cases involve the same or significantly similar legal questions of general importance. The withdrawal can be initiated upon the application of the Attorney General of India, a party involved in the case, or on the Court's own motion. Additionally, the Supreme Court has the authority to transfer cases, appeals, or other proceedings from one High Court to another if it deems it appropriate.

An instance of this power in action is seen in the case of Union of India vs. Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee. In this case, the respondents had filed a petition for damages in Punjab against the Union of India concerning the loss of gurudwara properties. Due to the prevailing extraordinary situation in Punjab, it was argued that a fair trial could not be conducted there. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted permission to transfer the case to the Delhi Court, justifying the transfer based on the circumstances.

Federal Court's Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court possesses jurisdiction and power over matters that fall outside the provisions of Articles 133 and 134, provided these matters were within the jurisdiction of the federal court immediately before the establishment of the Supreme Court. Two essential conditions must be met for the Supreme Court to exercise this jurisdiction:

• Articles 133 and 134 do not apply to the case in question.
• The case must be one that the federal court had the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal.

Jurisdiction of High Court 

The Constitution of India does not provide a detailed classification of the jurisdiction of High Courts. Instead, it is assumed that they operate under the jurisdiction that was established at the time of India's independence. Generally, the jurisdiction of a High Court is limited to the territorial boundaries of the state it serves, unless Parliament creates a common High Court for multiple states or extends a High Court's jurisdiction to a Union territory.

Expansion of High Court Jurisdiction

• The Constitution has broadened the jurisdiction of High Courts through Articles 226 and 227. Article 226 grants High Courts the power to issue certain writs, while Article 227 gives them the power of superintendence over all lower courts.
• State Legislatures can pass laws that affect the jurisdiction of High Courts, but such laws must be reserved for the President's consideration. Similarly, Parliament can also enact laws impacting High Court jurisdiction.

Writ Power Comparison: Supreme Court vs. High Courts

• The Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
• In contrast, High Courts have a broader scope and can issue writs for any legal right or legal duty, not just for Fundamental Rights.

Current Powers of High Courts

1. Original and Appellate Jurisdiction

• High Courts primarily function as courts of appeal. However, they have original jurisdiction in specific matters such as:
• 
  
  • Admiralty cases
  • Probate cases
  • Matrimonial cases
  • Contempt of court cases
  • Enforcement of Fundamental Rights
  • Cases transferred from lower courts involving constitutional interpretation

2. Power of Superintendence

• High Courts have exclusive power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals in their jurisdiction, excluding military tribunals.
• This power includes the ability to intervene in cases of gross injustice, even without an appeal or revision being filed.

3. A Court of Record

• According to Article 215, every High Court is a court of record and possesses all the powers of such a court.
• This includes the power to punish individuals for contempt of court.

4. Power to Issue Writs

• High Courts can issue orders or writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari to any person or authority for the enforcement of rights or for any other purposes.
• The phrase "for any other purposes" was initially omitted by the 42nd Amendment but was restored by the 44th Amendment.
• While the Supreme Court can only issue writs in cases of Fundamental Rights violations, High Courts can issue writs for both Fundamental Rights and other legal purposes.

5. Power to Transfer Cases

• High Courts have the authority under Article 228 to withdraw cases from subordinate courts if the case involves a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution.
• After determining the question of law, the High Court can return the case to the subordinate court for adjudication based on its directions.

6. Power of Appointment

• Under Article 229, the Chief Justice of a High Court has the authority to appoint staff members of the High Court in consultation with the state Public Service Commission.
• The Chief Justice can also regulate the conditions of service for the staff, subject to any applicable state legislation.

7. Control Over Subordinate Courts

• High Courts exercise administrative control over subordinate judiciary in the State concerning various matters, in addition to their appellate and supervisory jurisdiction.

Subordinate Courts include District Judges,City Civil Courts,Metropolitan Magistrates, and members of the state judicial service. The High Court's control over these subordinate Courts includes:

• Appointment, Posting, and Promotion: The Governor must consult the High Court when appointing, posting, and promoting district judges.
• Appointment of Judicial Service Members: The Governor consults the High Court, along with the State Public Service Commission, when appointing individuals (other than district judges) to the state's judicial service.
• Control Over District and Subordinate Courts: The High Court has control over district courts and their subordinate courts, including the posting, promotion, and leave grant of judicial service members holding any post inferior to that of a district judge.

By maintaining this control, the High Court ensures uniformity and quality in the administration of justice within the subordinate judiciary.

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

• Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act in 1985, which is in line with Article 323A of the Constitution.
• This act led to the establishment of Central Administrative Tribunals by the central government.
• The jurisdiction of all courts, including the High Court, over matters related to the recruitment and service conditions of Union public service appointees has ceased.
• However, the Supreme Court retains its special leave jurisdiction to hear appeals from these Tribunals.

Need of a Supreme Court

• A federal Constitution is characterized by the distribution of governmental powers between a Central Government and State Governments, as outlined in written form. However, the language used in this division can often be unclear, leading to varying interpretations over time. This ambiguity inevitably results in disputes between the Centre and the States regarding the specifics of power distribution and the scope of their respective authorities.
• To resolve these disputes, the Constitution serves as the ultimate reference point, being the supreme law that delineates the division of powers between the Union and the States.
• Moreover, it is crucial for such conflicts to be adjudicated by an impartial and independent body to ensure fairness and justice. In this context, the Supreme Court plays a vital role within a federal Constitution, acting as an essential component of the federal system. Its authority is pivotal in maintaining the balance of power and resolving conflicts that arise from the division of powers outlined in the Constitution.