NCERT Summary: Judiciary- 2 | Indian Polity for UPSC CSE PDF Download

Appellate Jurisdiction

• The Supreme Court of India serves as the highest court of appeal.
• Appeals can be made to the Supreme Court against decisions of the High Courts under specific conditions.
• Under Article 132, appeals involving substantial questions of law or constitutional interpretation require a certificate of fitness from the High Court.
• In criminal cases, under Article 134, appeals may also require such certification.
• However, the Supreme Court can admit appeals without a High Court certificate through its discretionary powers under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition).
• In cases of death sentences, the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 366) mandates that a Sessions Court’s death sentence be confirmed by the High Court before an appeal can be filed with the Supreme Court, either with certification or via Article 136.
• Appellate jurisdiction involves the Supreme Court reconsidering the case and its legal issues.
• If the Court finds that the lower court’s interpretation of the law or Constitution is incorrect, it may alter the ruling and provide a new interpretation of the relevant provisions.
• High Courts also have appellate jurisdiction over decisions of subordinate courts within their jurisdiction.

Advisory Jurisdiction

• Under Article 143, the Supreme Court possesses advisory jurisdiction, allowing the President of India to seek its opinion on matters of public importance or constitutional interpretation.
• The Supreme Court is not obligated to provide advice, nor is the President bound to act on it.
• This jurisdiction serves two purposes:
  • It enables the government to obtain legal opinions to avoid future litigation.
  • It allows the government to adjust policies or legislation based on the Court’s advice.

Review and Enforcement Powers

Article 137 grants the Supreme Court the power to review its own judgments or orders, ensuring flexibility in correcting errors or revisiting decisions. Article 144 mandates that all civil and judicial authorities in India act in aid of the Supreme Court, ensuring its orders are enforceable nationwide. Under Article 141, the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts, though administrative or procedural orders may not have the same binding effect. The Supreme Court also has the authority to adjudicate cases of contempt against itself.

Judiciary and Rights

The judiciary is tasked with protecting individual rights, particularly fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court and High Courts safeguard these rights through two mechanisms:

1. Writs: Under Article 32, the Supreme Court can issue writs such as Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto to enforce fundamental rights. High Courts have similar powers under Article 226.

2. Judicial Review: Under Article 13, the Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional if they violate fundamental rights, rendering them inoperative.

The right against exploitation, enshrined in Articles 23 and 24, prohibits human trafficking, forced labor, and similar practices (Article 23) and bans the employment of children below 14 in hazardous occupations (Article 24). Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has enabled the judiciary to address violations of these rights, such as inhumane working conditions, police brutality, and child exploitation, making justice accessible to marginalized groups.

Judicial Review

• Judicial review is an important part of the Supreme Court's power, even though it is not directly stated in the Constitution.
• It comes from several articles in the Constitution:
  • Article 13 allows the court to invalidate laws that violate fundamental rights.
  • Articles 32 and 226 focus on enforcing rights.
  • The court is the final authority on interpreting the Constitution.
• Judicial review enables the Supreme Court and High Courts to check if laws are constitutional.
• Significant cases, like Minerva Mills from 1980, have strengthened this power.
• The Supreme Court can cancel laws that:
  • Violate fundamental rights.
  • Disrupt the federal distribution of powers.
  • Do not follow proper procedures.
• For example, if a national law interferes with a topic that is supposed to be managed by states, those states can challenge the law.
• The Supreme Court can then declare that law as unconstitutional.
• The judiciary has strong powers to issue orders and review cases, making it a key defender of the Constitution and the rights of citizens.
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has expanded the judiciary's role in tackling widespread problems that affect less fortunate people.

Judiciary and Parliament

The Indian Constitution establishes a delicate balance of power among the judiciary, legislature, and executive, with each organ having distinct functions. The Parliament is supreme in lawmaking and constitutional amendments, the executive in implementation, and the judiciary in interpreting the Constitution and resolving disputes. However, tensions have arisen, particularly over judicial review and parliamentary sovereignty.

A significant conflict emerged over the right to property. In the 1950s and 1960s, Parliament sought to restrict this right to implement land reforms, but the Supreme Court ruled that fundamental rights could not be curtailed, even through constitutional amendments. This led to debates over:

1. The scope of the right to private property.

2. Parliament’s power to curtail fundamental rights.

3. Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution.

4. The balance between fundamental rights and directive principles.

The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) resolved this by establishing the basic structure doctrine, holding that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to violate its basic structure (e.g., judicial review, federalism). The Court ruled that the right to property was not part of the basic structure and could be abridged. The right to property was removed as a fundamental right through the 44th Amendment in 1978. The Court also reserved the right to determine what constitutes the basic structure, shaping the balance between Parliament and the judiciary.

Judicial activism has further expanded the judiciary’s role. For example, the Supreme Court directed the CBI to investigate cases like the hawala scam and Narasimha Rao case, raising concerns about judicial overreach. While activism has strengthened rights protection, it has sparked debates about encroaching on legislative and executive domains.

Unresolved tensions include whether courts can intervene in parliamentary privileges (Article 105) or disciplinary actions against legislators. Cases like Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) highlight this conflict. Similarly, the Constitution prohibits parliamentary discussions on judicial conduct, yet legislatures have occasionally criticized the judiciary, while courts have issued directives on legislative conduct, raising questions about sovereignty.

Conclusion

The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, is a powerful and independent institution. Through its appellate, advisory, and review powers, it interprets the Constitution, protects fundamental rights, and maintains the balance of power. Landmark decisions like Kesavananda Bharati have shaped its role as the guardian of the Constitution. Despite occasional tensions with the legislature and executive, the judiciary’s prestige has grown, though challenges like delays in justice and acquittals of the powerful remain. The judiciary’s independence and activism inspire both awe and expectations, reinforcing its critical role in India’s democratic framework.