Supreme Court | Constitutional Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

 Introduction

• Chapter IV of Part V in the Constitution of India focuses on the Indian judiciary.
• Articles 124 to 147 outline the constitution and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India.
• Unlike the executive and legislature, the judiciary in India is integrated.
• The Supreme Court's decisions are binding on all lower courts in India, as per Article 141 and the doctrine of precedents.

Article 124 - Establishment and Constitution of Supreme Court

Article 124 of the Constitution of India deals with the establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court. Here are the key points:

 Supreme Court Composition 

• The Supreme Court of India consists of  one Chief Justice  and a maximum of  seven other judges  , unless Parliament decides to increase this number.

 Appointment of Judges 

• Judges are appointed by the  President of India  after consulting with certain judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
• The  Chief Justice of India  must be consulted when appointing other judges.

 Qualifications for Judges 

• A candidate must be a  citizen of India  and meet at least one of the following criteria:
• Have been a Judge of a High Court for at least  five years  .
• Have been an advocate of a High Court for at least  ten years  .
• Be considered a  distinguished jurist  by the President.
• High Court is defined as a court exercising jurisdiction in any part of India.
• Judicial service periods can be included in the advocacy period calculation.

 Tenure and Removal of Judges 

• Judges hold office until the age of  sixty-five years  .
• Judges can resign by writing to the President or can be removed by the President based on a parliamentary address.

 Oath of Office 

• Before taking office, judges must make an oath or affirmation before the President or an authorized person.

 Prohibition on Practice After Retirement 

• Retired Supreme Court judges cannot plead or act in any court or before any authority in India.

 Removal by Impeachment 

As per Article 124(4) of the Constitution, a Supreme Court judge can be removed before the age of 65 on grounds of proven misbehavior or incapacity.

 Grounds for Removal 

•  Misbehavior  or  Incapacity  : The Constitution does not define these terms. A judge can be removed on either ground, not necessarily both.
•  Proven Conduct  : The judge's misbehavior or incapacity must be proven, not merely suspected or alleged.
•  Natural Justice  : The judge must be informed of the charges and given a chance to defend themselves.

 Process of Removal 

• A Supreme Court judge can be removed by the President of India.
• This action can only be taken after both Houses of Parliament present an address to the President, calling for the judge's removal on grounds of proven misbehavior or incapacity.
• The address must be supported by a majority of the total membership of each House and by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting.

 Parliamentary Procedure 

• Article 124(5) allows Parliament to regulate the procedure for presenting an address and for investigating a judge's misbehavior or incapacity.
• In accordance with this provision, the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 was enacted.
• The Act outlines a detailed procedure for investigating and establishing a judge's misbehavior or incapacity through a committee of inquiry.
• The committee, appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, frames specific charges against the judge and provides them with a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves.
• If the committee finds the judge guilty, the matter is brought before the House for consideration.
• Once the motion is adopted as per Article 124(4), an address is presented to the President for the judge's removal.

 Jurisdiction, Powers, and Functions of the Supreme Court 

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the Constitution is extensive, as it serves as the highest court of appeal in all matters. The Supreme Court is endowed with significant powers, including the authority to enforce fundamental rights as outlined in Article 32 of the Constitution.

 Power to Enforce Fundamental Rights (Art. 32) 

•  Article 32  of the Constitution guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. It empowers the Court to issue directions, orders, or writs, such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, for the protection of these rights.
•  Fundamental Rights  , enumerated in Part III of the Constitution, include the Right to Equality, Freedom of Speech and Expression, and Protection against Discrimination. Article 32 is crucial for their enforcement, as it provides a legal remedy for violations.
•  Dr. B.R. Ambedkar  described Article 32 as the "soul" and "heart" of the Constitution, emphasizing its importance in safeguarding fundamental rights.
•  Article 32(1)  grants individuals the right to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, making this right itself a fundamental one.
•  Article 32(2)  empowers the Supreme Court to issue various writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights, including preventive and remedial measures.
• The Supreme Court plays a pivotal role in protecting and guaranteeing fundamental rights, with the authority to award compensation and costs in cases where the State violates these rights, particularly under Article 21, which ensures the right to life and personal liberty.

 Supreme Court's Power to Commit a Person for Contempt 

 Article 129 - Supreme Court to be a Court of Record 

•  Definition:  The Supreme Court is designated as a court of record, endowed with the authority to punish for contempt of itself.
•  Powers of a Court of Record:  A court of record possesses the ability to determine its own jurisdiction and to punish for contempt.

 Characteristics of a Court of Record:  A court of record is where its actions and judicial proceedings are documented for perpetual memorial and testimony. It has the power to fine and imprison for contempt of itself. The records of such a court hold evidentiary value and cannot be questioned when presented before any court.

•  Purpose of Contempt Punishment:  The power to punish for contempt is aimed at upholding the majesty and dignity of the court, preventing scandal against the judiciary, and ensuring the purity of the stream of justice. It also bars interference in the administration of justice.
•  Extension of Power:  The Supreme Court's power to punish for contempt extends to all courts and tribunals subordinate to it. This power does not require appraisal by anyone for its exercise.

 Case Example: Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat 

•  Supreme Court's Authority:  In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that its power to punish for contempt under Article 129 is not limited to its own contempt. It extends to all subordinate courts and tribunals across the country.
•  Interpretation of Article 129:  The phrase "including the power to punish for contempt of itself" is not restrictive. It does not limit the Supreme Court's jurisdiction as a court of record to punish contempt of only itself.

 Limitation of Power: 

• The Supreme Court's constitutional power to punish for contempt cannot be diminished by any legislation, such as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
• However, this power should not exceed its defined limits or address matters already covered by legislation.

 Case Example: Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India 

•  Contempt of Court and Lawyers:  In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that while contempt of court is a serious misconduct for lawyers, leading to deprivation of their license to practice, such deprivation can only be carried out by the Bar Council.
•  Reference to Advocates Act, 1961:  The decision was based on the clear provisions in the Advocates Act, 1961, and the rules made under it.
•  Overruling of Previous Decision:  The Court overruled its earlier decision in Vinay Chandra Mishra, where it suspended a senior lawyer's license for contempt along with other punishments.

Article 131 - Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court 

The Supreme Court of India has the power to settle disputes under original jurisdiction as outlined in Article 131 of the Constitution. This article grants the Supreme Court the authority to handle specific types of disputes involving the Government of India and the States. Let's break down the key points:

 Original Jurisdiction 

• The Supreme Court has  original and exclusive jurisdiction  in certain disputes:
• Between one or more States and the  Government of India  .
• Between one or more States on one side and the  Government of India and any State  on the other side.
• Between two or more States if the dispute involves a question of law or fact regarding the existence or extent of a legal right.
•  Original jurisdiction  means the court has the authority to hear and decide a case at the first instance.
•  Exclusive jurisdiction  means no other court can hear and decide the case.
• The dispute must involve the existence or extent of a legal right.
• The purpose of Article 131 is to ensure that disputes between States are not decided by one of the disputing parties' courts.

 Limitations on Original Jurisdiction 

The article imposes two limitations on the exercise of original jurisdiction:

 1) To the party 

• The dispute must be inter-State, involving the Union and one or more States, or between States.
• The Supreme Court cannot entertain suits brought by private individuals against the  Government of India  .
• For example, in the case of  State of Bihar v. Union of India  , the Court ruled that a dispute between the State of Bihar and a private company did not fall under its original jurisdiction because the company was not considered a State under Article 131.

 2) To the subject matter 

• The dispute must involve a question where the existence or extent of a legal right is at stake.
• A legal right is an interest protected by legal principles.
• The legal right can belong to either the Plaintiff or the Defendant.
• If a party's claim is based on non-legal factors, the court does not have jurisdiction under Article 131.

 Adjudication Process 

• Under Article 131, the Supreme Court is not bound to adjudicate disputes in the same manner as ordinary courts.
• A suit does not need to be filed in the Supreme Court for complete resolution of the dispute, and the Court can pass decrees that are not necessarily executable like those of other courts.

 Proviso to Article 131 

• The proviso to Article 131 states that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction does not cover disputes arising from treaties, agreements, covenants, or engagements.
• Disputes involving the interpretation of these documents are within the executive's discretion.
• Additionally, Parliament may exclude the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in disputes between States regarding the use, distribution, or control of inter-State river waters.
• The Constitution also excludes the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in matters referred to the  Finance Commission  and in matters related to the adjustment of certain expenses between the Union and States.

Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Article 132 - Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in Appeals from High Courts in Certain Cases 

 1. Right to Appeal:  An appeal can be made to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree, or final order of a High Court in India, whether in a civil, criminal, or other proceeding, if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution.

 2. Omitted Provision:  Part (2) of the article has been omitted.

 3. Grounds for Appeal:  When the High Court issues such a certificate, any party involved in the case can appeal to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the substantial question of law has been incorrectly decided.

 Explanation:  For the purposes of this article, a  final order  includes an order that declares an issue which, if decided in favor of the appellant, would be sufficient for the final disposal of the case.

 Key Points: 

• The  Supreme Court  is the ultimate authority on constitutional interpretation.
• Discrepancies among High Courts on constitutional matters can lead to confusion.
• Article 132 allows appeals to the Supreme Court from High Court decisions on substantial constitutional questions.
• The term  “final order”  refers to decisions that could resolve the case entirely if in favor of the appellant.
• Only parties involved in the High Court case have the right to appeal based on the certificate.

Supreme Court's Appellate Jurisdiction in Civil Matters

The Supreme Court has the authority to hear appeals from the judgments, decrees, or final orders made by High Courts in civil proceedings. When a person's civil rights are violated by another individual or the state, they can seek relief in a civil court. The civil court may determine that the plaintiff's claim is valid and entitled to relief at the conclusion of the proceedings. To invoke the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, certain conditions must be met:

 Conditions for Supreme Court's Appellate Jurisdiction 

• The appeal must be against a judgment, decree, or final order of a High Court in a civil proceeding.
• The High Court must certify that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance and that this question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.

It is important to note that the terms "judgment," "decree," and "final order" all refer to the civil court's decision that conclusively determines the rights of the parties involved in a dispute or lawsuit. Under Article 133, no appeal can be made against the judgment, decree, or final order of a single judge of a High Court unless Parliament passes a law to lift this restriction.

 Article 133: Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in Civil Matters 

• An appeal can be made to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree, or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in India if the High Court certifies that:
•  (a)  the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance, and
•  (b)  the question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.
• Parties appealing to the Supreme Court can argue that a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution has been wrongly decided.
• No appeal can be made to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree, or final order of a single Judge of a High Court, unless Parliament allows it by law.

 Appeals to the Supreme Court in Criminal Matters 

 Article 134: Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Criminal Matters 

• An appeal can be made to the Supreme Court from a High Court's judgment, final order, or sentence in a criminal case under the following circumstances:
•  Reversal of Acquittal:  If the High Court overturns an acquittal and sentences the accused to death.
•  Withdrawal for Trial:  If the High Court takes a case from a subordinate court, conducts the trial, and convicts the accused with a death sentence.
•  Certification for Appeal:  If the High Court certifies that the case is suitable for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134A.
•  Parliamentary Power:  Parliament can grant the Supreme Court additional powers to hear appeals from High Court decisions in criminal cases, subject to specified conditions.

 Appeals in Criminal Cases 

• The Supreme Court holds the  criminal appellate jurisdiction  , allowing appeals against High Court decisions in criminal cases when certified by the High Court.
• The High Court grants certification for appeal when the case involves difficult legal questions or principles, typically indicating a substantial question of law.
• The Supreme Court's criminal appellate jurisdiction is invoked under the following circumstances:
•  Reversal of Acquittal:  When the High Court overturns a Sessions Court's acquittal and sentences the accused to death.
•  Withdrawal for Trial:  When the High Court takes a case from a subordinate court, convicts the accused, and imposes a death sentence.
• Parliament has the authority to expand the Supreme Court's appellate criminal jurisdiction through legislation.
• In 1970, Parliament enacted a law allowing appeals to the Supreme Court when the High Court sentences the accused to life imprisonment or a term of not less than ten years, instead of death.

 Special Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court (Article 136) 

• Under Article 136, the Supreme Court has the discretion to grant  special leave to appeal  from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order made by any court or tribunal in India.
• Unlike Articles 132 to 135, where specific conditions must be met, Article 136 allows the Supreme Court to grant permission based on its discretion.
• Appeals under Article 136 can be made against determinations, sentences, or orders, whether final or interim, from courts or tribunals that are not limited to High Courts or specific tribunals (e.g., Industrial Tribunal, Income Tax Tribunal).
• The Supreme Court may decide to grant special leave in cases where a party has suffered significant injustice due to a violation of natural justice principles or where a tribunal's decision is so incorrect or absurd that it shocks the court's conscience.
• Appeals based on executive or administrative orders are generally not entertained under Article 136. The court is more inclined to grant leave in exceptional circumstances, such as improper tribunal constitution, unfair procedures, or jurisdictional overreach by the tribunal.
• The Supreme Court cannot grant special leave against decisions made by courts or tribunals operating under laws related to the armed forces.

 Power of Supreme Court to Review Its Own Judgments and Orders 

 Article 137 - Review of Judgments or Orders by the Supreme Court 

• The Supreme Court has the authority to review any judgment or order it has made, as per Article 137 of the Constitution.
• This power is subject to laws made by Parliament or rules made under Article 145.
• While judicial decisions are generally expected to be final to prevent endless litigation, strict adherence to this principle could lead to significant injustice.
• If the Court discovers that crucial evidence or arguments were overlooked at the time of its decision, it can reconsider its ruling to ensure justice.
• Article 137 allows the Supreme Court to review its judgments on grounds such as:
• Discovery of new and important evidence.
• Apparent errors or mistakes in law.
• Any other sufficient and justifiable reason.

 Supreme Court's Power to Ensure Complete Justice 

•  Article 142  of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to make orders necessary for achieving complete justice in any case before it.
• These orders are enforceable throughout India, as prescribed by law or by the President until such law is made.
• The Supreme Court has the authority to secure the attendance of individuals, the production of documents, and to address contempt of court across the entire country.
• This power under Article 142 is supplementary to the Court's other powers and is used to ensure due process and complete justice.
• For example, the Supreme Court can order compensation for illegal detention or interim compensation for victims of crimes like rape.

 Advisory Jurisdiction under Article 143 

 Power of President to Consult Supreme Court 

•  Article 143  of the Constitution empowers the President of India to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact that are of significant public importance.
• The President can refer such questions to the Supreme Court for consideration, and the Court will provide its opinion after hearing the matter.
• For example, if there is a legal issue that could impact a large number of people or is crucial for governance, the President may consult the Supreme Court to gain clarity before making decisions.
• The advisory opinion given by the Supreme Court is not binding on the President, but it serves as an important guide in decision-making processes.

 Presidential Reference for Advisory Opinion 

• Article 143 allows the  President  to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on questions of law or fact deemed significant and of public importance.
• The Supreme Court can provide advisory opinions at the President's request, but it does not have the power to act as an appellate or reviewing authority over its previous decisions.
• When the President refers a question for advisory opinion, notices are typically sent to the  Attorney General  and other concerned parties, who may appear as parties or interveners.
• After considering the matter, the Supreme Court reports its opinion to the President. However, the advisory opinion is not binding on the President, and the Court may decline to express its opinion if the reference is unclear.

 Differences between Advisory Jurisdiction and Article 131 

•  Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143)  : The President can consult the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact of public importance. The Court provides its opinion, which is not binding. This mechanism is used for guidance on legal matters.
•  Article 131  : This article deals with the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in disputes between states or between the Union and states. It involves cases where the Supreme Court has the authority to adjudicate disputes directly, rather than providing advisory opinions.
• In summary, advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 allows for consultation and guidance, while Article 131 pertains to the Supreme Court's role in resolving specific legal disputes.