Laxmikanth Summary: Supreme Court | Indian Polity for UPSC CSE PDF Download

Introduction

Indian judiciary is integrated with the Supreme Court at the top, followed by High Courts and subordinate courts.

• Integrated Judicial System: India has a unified judicial system with the Supreme Court at the top, followed by High Courts and subordinate courts. This system enforces both Central and State laws.
• Contrast with the USA: In the USA, there are separate judicial systems for federal and state laws. India, despite being a federal country, has a single system of fundamental law and justice.
• Supreme Court Inauguration: The Supreme Court of India was inaugurated on January 28, 1950, succeeding the Federal Court of India established under the Government of India Act of 1935.
• Expanded Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has greater jurisdiction than its predecessor, as it replaced the British Privy Council as the highest court of appeal in India.
• Constitutional Provisions: Articles 124 to 147 in Part V of the Constitution deal with the organization, independence, jurisdiction, powers, and procedures of the Supreme Court.
• Regulation by Parliament: The Parliament is authorized to regulate the organization and procedures of the Supreme Court.
• Pre-1950 Appeals: Before 1950, the British Privy Council had the jurisdiction to hear appeals from India.

Composition and Appointment

Composition of the Supreme Court

• Current Strength: The Supreme Court currently has 34 judges, including one Chief Justice and 33 other judges.
• Historical Strength: Initially, the Supreme Court was made up of eight members: one Chief Justice and seven other judges.
• Increases in Strength:Over the years, the number of judges has been gradually increased by Parliament:
  • 1956: Increased to 10 judges
  • 1960: Increased to 13 judges
  • 1977: Increased to 17 judges
  • 1986: Increased to 25 judges
  • 2008: Increased to 30 judges
  • 2019: Increased to 33 judges

Appointment of Judges

• Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President of India.
• Chief Justice: The President appoints the Chief Justice after consulting with judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as deemed necessary.
• Other Judges: The President appoints other judges after consulting the Chief Justice and other judges as deemed necessary. Consultation with the Chief Justice is mandatory for appointing other judges.

Controversy over Consultation

• First Judges Case (1981): The Supreme Court interpreted 'consultation' as an exchange of views, not as requiring agreement.
• Second Judges Case (1993): The Court changed its stance, defining 'consultation' as 'concurrence,' making the Chief Justice's advice binding on the President for appointing Supreme Court judges.
• Third Judges Case (1998): The Court emphasized a consultation process involving a plurality of judges, not just the Chief Justice's opinion.
• 99th Constitutional Amendment (2014): This amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act aimed to replace the Collegium system with the NJAC for appointing judges.
• Supreme Court Ruling (2015): The Court declared the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act unconstitutional, restoring the Collegium system. This decision, known as the Fourth Judges Case, was based on concerns that the NJAC would compromise judicial independence.

Appointment of Chief Justice

• Convention (1950-1973): The practice was to appoint the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court as the Chief Justice of India.
• Violation of Convention:  In 1973, the convention was breached when A.N. Ray was appointed Chief Justice by superseding three senior judges.

Qualifications, Oath, and Salaries of Supreme Court Judges

Qualifications of Judges. person eligible for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court must meet the following criteria: Citizenship. The individual must be a citizen of India. Judicial Experience. One of the following qualifications is necessary: (a) High Court Judge. The person should have served as a judge of a High Court (or successive High Courts) for a minimum of five years. (b) Advocate. The individual should have been an advocate of a High Court (or successive High Courts) for at least ten years. (c) Distinguished Jurist. The person should be considered a distinguished jurist by the President of India. Minimum Age. The Constitution does not specify a minimum age for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court.

• Oath or Affirmation Before assuming office, a newly appointed Supreme Court judge must make and subscribe to an oath or affirmation. This is done before the President of India or a designated person. The oath includes commitments to: True Faith and Allegiance. Bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India. Sovereignty and Integrity. Uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India. Duty Performance. Perform duties of the office faithfully, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. Constitution and Laws. Uphold the Constitution and the laws.
• Salaries and Allowances The Parliament determines the salaries, allowances, privileges, leave, and pension of Supreme Court judges. Protection Against Disadvantage. These cannot be varied to the judges' disadvantage after appointment, except during a financial emergency. Recent Salary Increases. In 2018, the salary of the Chief Justice was raised from ₹1 lakh to ₹2.80 lakh per month, and that of a judge from ₹90,000 to ₹2.50 lakh per month. Additional Benefits. Judges receive a sumptuary allowance and are provided with free accommodation and facilities such as medical care, cars, and telephones. Pension for Retired Judges. Retired Chief Justices and judges are entitled to a monthly pension of 50% of their last drawn salary.

Tenure and Removal of Supreme Court Judges

Tenure of Judges

• Tenure Not Fixed: The Constitution does not specify a fixed tenure for Supreme Court judges.
• Provisions for Tenure: The Constitution makes the following provisions regarding the tenure of judges:
• Retirement Age: Judges hold office until they reach the age of 65 years. Any disputes regarding a judge's age are determined by the authority and manner prescribed by Parliament.
• Resignation: Judges can resign from their position by writing to the President of India.
• Removal: Judges can be removed from office by the President on the recommendation of Parliament.

Removal of Judges

• Removal Process:. Supreme Court judge can be removed from office by the President of India. However, the President can issue the removal order only after Parliament has presented an address for such removal in the same session.
• Parliamentary Support: The address for removal must be supported by a special majority in each House of Parliament. This means a majority of the total membership of the House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.
• Grounds for Removal: The grounds for removal are proved misbehaviour or incapacity of the judge.
• Judges Enquiry Act (1968): This Act regulates the procedure for the removal of a Supreme Court judge through impeachment.
• Initiating Removal:. removal motion can be initiated by 100 members in the Lok Sabha or 50 members in the Rajya Sabha. The motion is submitted to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
• Role of Speaker/Chairman: The Speaker or Chairman can either admit or refuse to admit the motion. If admitted, a three-member committee is constituted to investigate the charges.
• Composition of the Committee: The committee consists of:
  (a) The Chief Justice or a judge of the Supreme Court,
  (b) A Chief Justice of a High Court, and
  (c) A distinguished jurist.
• Committee Findings: If the committee finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, the House can consider the motion.
• Special Majority: The motion must be passed by each House of Parliament by a special majority.
• Presidential Order: After the motion is passed, an address is presented to the President for the removal of the judge. The President then issues the removal order.
• Terminology: The term "impeachment" is not used in the Constitution for the removal of judges. It is used only for the removal of the President.
• Historical Context: No Supreme Court judge has been impeached so far. The first case of impeachment was that of Justice V. Ramaswami, but he could not be removed as the impeachment motion was defeated in the Lok Sabha.

Acting, Ad Hoc, and Retired Judges

Acting Chief Justice
The President has the authority to appoint a judge from the Supreme Court as the Acting Chief Justice of India under the following circumstances:

1. When there is a vacancy in the office of the Chief Justice of India.
2. When the Chief Justice of India is temporarily absent.
3. When the Chief Justice of India is unable to perform the duties of the office.

Ad Hoc Judge

• In situations where there are not enough permanent judges to hold or continue a session of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India has the authority to appoint a High Court judge as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court for a temporary period.
• This appointment can only be made after consulting with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court and obtaining the prior consent of the President.
• The appointed judge must be qualified for the position of a Supreme Court judge.
• While serving as an ad hoc judge, this individual must prioritize attending the Supreme Court sittings over other duties.
• During these sittings, the ad hoc judge will have all the jurisdiction, powers, privileges, and responsibilities of a Supreme Court judge.

Retired Judge

• The Chief Justice of India has the option to request a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a retired High Court judge (who is qualified for appointment as a Supreme Court judge) to serve as a Supreme Court judge on a temporary basis.
• This request can only be made with the prior consent of the President and the individual being appointed.
• The retired judge will receive allowances determined by the President and will have the same jurisdiction, powers, and privileges as a Supreme Court judge during this period.
• However, the retired judge will not be considered a permanent judge of the Supreme Court.

Seat and Procedure of the Supreme Court

Seat of the Supreme Court

• The Constitution designates Delhi as the official seat of the Supreme Court.
• However, it also gives the Chief Justice of India the authority to appoint other places as seats for the Supreme Court, if necessary.
• This decision by the Chief Justice can only be made with the President's approval.
• It's important to note that this provision is optional, not mandatory.
• This means that no court can compel the President or the Chief Justice to designate another location as the Supreme Court's seat.

Procedure of the Court

• The Supreme Court has the authority to establish rules for regulating its practice and procedure, with the President's approval.
• Cases referred by the President under Article 143 are decided by a Bench of at least five judges.
• Other cases are decided by single judges or division benches.
• Judgements are delivered in open court and are based on a majority vote.
• If there are differing opinions, judges can issue dissenting judgements or opinions.

Independence of Supreme Court

The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in the Indian democratic system as a federal court, the highest court of appeal, and the protector of citizens' fundamental rights and the Constitution. Its independence is vital for fulfilling these responsibilities effectively. The Court must be free from interference by the executive (the council of ministers) and the Legislature (Parliament) to administer justice impartially.

To ensure the Supreme Court's independent and impartial functioning, the Constitution has established several provisions:

• Mode of Appointment: Supreme Court judges are appointed by the President (on the advice of the cabinet) in consultation with members of the judiciary (judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts). This process limits the executive's discretion and prevents political or personal biases in judicial appointments.
• Security of Tenure: Supreme Court judges have security of tenure and can only be removed by the President under specific constitutional grounds. This ensures they do not serve at the President's pleasure and protects their position, as evidenced by the fact that no Supreme Court judge has been impeached.
• Fixed Service Conditions: The Parliament determines judges' salaries, allowances, privileges, leave, and pensions, which cannot be altered to their disadvantage after appointment, except during a financial emergency. This provision keeps their service conditions stable throughout their term.
• Expenses Charged on Consolidated Fund: Judges' salaries, allowances, pensions, and administrative expenses are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, making them non-votable by Parliament, although they can be discussed.
• Conduct of Judges cannot be Discussed: Parliament and State Legislatures are prohibited from discussing Supreme Court judges' conduct in discharging their duties, except during impeachment proceedings.
• Ban on Practice after Retirement: Retired Supreme Court judges are barred from practicing or acting in any court or authority within India, preventing potential conflicts of interest or favoritism.
• Power to Punish for Contempt: The Supreme Court has the authority to punish individuals for contempt, safeguarding its authority, dignity, and honor by preventing criticism or opposition to its actions and decisions.
• Freedom to Appoint Staff: The Chief Justice of India can appoint Supreme Court officers and staff and determine their service conditions without executive interference.
• Jurisdiction cannot be Curtailed: Parliament cannot limit the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and powers, which are guaranteed by the Constitution. However, Parliament can extend these powers.

Jurisdiction and Powersof Supreme Court

The Constitution grants the Supreme Court extensive jurisdiction and vast powers. It functions not only as a federal court, like the American Supreme Court, but also as a final court of appeal, similar to the British House of Lords. Additionally, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter and guardian of the Constitution and the protector of citizens' fundamental rights. It also possesses advisory and supervisory powers. Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar, a member of the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly, noted that "the Supreme Court of India has more powers than any other Supreme Court in any part of the world." The jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court can be classified into the following:

• Original Jurisdiction.
• Writ Jurisdiction.
• Appellate Jurisdiction.
• Advisory Jurisdiction.
• A Court of Record.
• Power of Judicial Review.
• Constitutional Interpretation.
• Other Powers.

Original Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court, as a federal court, resolves disputes between different units of the Indian Federation. Specifically, it handles disputes:

1. Between the Centre and one or more states;
2. Between the Centre and any state or states on one side and one or more other states on the other side;
3. Between two or more states.

In such federal disputes, the Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction, meaning no other court can decide these disputes, and it has the power to hear these disputes in the first instance, not by way of appeal.

Two important points regarding the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court are:

1. The dispute must involve a question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends, excluding questions of a political nature.
2. Suits brought by private citizens against the Centre or a state cannot be entertained under this jurisdiction.

However, this jurisdiction does not extend to:

1. Disputes arising out of treaties or similar instruments entered into before the commencement of the Constitution;
2. Inter-state river water disputes;
3. Matters referred to the Finance Commission;
4. Adjustment of certain expenses and pensions between the Centre and the states.

In 1961, the first suit under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was brought by West Bengal against the Centre, challenging the constitutional validity of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the suit, upholding the validity of the Act.

Writ Jurisdiction

The Constitution designates the Supreme Court as the protector of citizens' fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has the authority to issue writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to enforce these rights for aggrieved citizens. In this context, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, meaning aggrieved citizens can approach the Supreme Court directly, without needing to appeal. However, this writ jurisdiction is not exclusive to the Supreme Court; high courts also have the power to issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights. This means that when a citizen's fundamental rights are violated, they can choose to approach either the high court or the Supreme Court directly.

There are differences between the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court regarding federal disputes and its jurisdiction concerning fundamental rights:

• In federal disputes, the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is exclusive, while in fundamental rights cases, it is concurrent with the high courts' jurisdiction.
• The parties involved in federal disputes are units of the federation (Centre and states), whereas in fundamental rights cases, the dispute is between a citizen and the government (Central or state).

Additionally, there is a distinction between the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and that of high courts:

• The Supreme Court can issue writs only for enforcing fundamental rights, while high courts can issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights and other purposes.
• This means the writ jurisdiction of high courts is broader than that of the Supreme Court.

However, Parliament has the authority to grant the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for purposes beyond fundamental rights.

Jurisdiction and Powers of the Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India, established under the Constitution, is the highest court in the country and serves as the successor to the Federal Court of India and the British Privy Council. It primarily functions as a court of appeal, hearing cases against the judgments of High Courts. The Supreme Court has a wide appellate jurisdiction, which can be categorized into four main areas:

1. Appeals in Constitutional Matters: Appeals can be made to the Supreme Court against High Court judgments in constitutional cases if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law requiring constitutional interpretation.
2. Appeals in Civil Matters: In civil cases, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from a High Court judgment if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance that needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.
3. Appeals in Criminal Matters: The Supreme Court hears appeals in criminal cases from High Courts under specific circumstances, such as when a High Court reverses an order of acquittal and sentences the accused to death, or when the High Court certifies that the case is fit for appeal to the Supreme Court.
4. Appeals by Special Leave: The Supreme Court has the discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment passed by any court or tribunal in the country, except military tribunals and courts martial. This power is broad and allows the Supreme Court to hear appeals in various matters, including constitutional, civil, criminal, and labor issues.

As a Court of Record, the Supreme Court has two powers:

(i) The judgements, proceedings and acts of the Supreme Court are recorded for perpetual memory and testimony.

(ii) It has power to punish for contempt of itself.

Contempt of Courts Act (1971)

• In 1961, the government appointed a special committee under the chairmanship of H.N. Sanyal, the then Additional Solicitor General of India, to examine the law relating to the contempt of courts.
• Based on the recommendations made by the committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was enacted by the Parliament.
• Under the Act, the contempt of court may be civil or criminal.
• The civil contempt means wilful disobedience to any judgement, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
• The criminal contempt, on the other hand, means the publication of any matter or doing an act which-(i) scandalises or lowers the author­ity of a court; or (ii) prejudices or interferes with the due course of a judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or obstructs the administra­tion of justice in any other manner.
• However, innocent publication and distribu­tion of matter, fair and accurate report of judi­cial proceedings and fair criticism of judicial acts do not amount to contempt of court.
• Under the Act, a contempt of court is pun­ishable with simple imprisonment for a term upto six months or with fine upto 2,000 or with both.
• The Act also provides that no court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt after the expiry of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.
• Further, this Act is not applicable to con­tempt of Nyaya Panchayats or other village courts which have been established for the administration of justice.

Power of Judicial Review

• Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and state governments.
• On examination, if they are found to be vio­lative of the Constitution (ultra-vires), they can be declared as illegal, unconstitutional and invalid (null and void) by the Supreme Court.
• Consequently, they cannot be enforced by the Government.

Review Jurisdiction

• The Supreme Court has power to review any judgement pronounced or order made by it.
• A review petition has to be filed within thirty days from the date of the judgement or order sought to be reviewed.
• Also, the review peti­tion should be submitted to the same judge or bench that delivered the judgement or order.

Further, a review petition is allowed on the following grounds:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence.
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The court may either dismiss the review petition or direct notice to the opposite party.
However, even after the dismissal of the review petition, the court can still reconsider its final judgement or order by way of a cura­tive petition on limited grounds like:
(i) Violation of the principles of natural justice.
(ii) To cure a gross miscarriage of justice.
(iii) To prevent abuse of the process of the court.
(iv) Bias of the judge.

Constitutional Interpretation

• The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.
• It can give final version to the spirit and content of the provisions of the constitution and the verbiage used in the constitution.
• While interpreting the constitution, the Supreme Court is guided by a number of doctrines.
• In other words, the Supreme Court applies various doctrines in interpreting the constitution.

1. Doctrine of Severability

• This doctrine is applied when a part of a law is found to be unconstitutional or invalid. In such cases, the valid parts of the law can still be enforced, while the invalid portions are severed or removed.

2. Doctrine of Waiver

• The Doctrine of Waiver refers to the principle that a person can voluntarily relinquish a known right or privilege. In legal terms, it means that a party may waive certain rights or claims, either explicitly or implicitly, by their actions or conduct.

3. Doctrine of Eclipse

• The Doctrine of Eclipse is a legal principle in India that applies to laws that are inconsistent with fundamental rights. When a law is struck down as unconstitutional due to a violation of fundamental rights, it is said to be eclipsed by the fundamental rights. However, the law does not become void; it remains in abeyance until the fundamental rights issue is resolved.

4. Doctrine of Territorial Nexus

• The Doctrine of Territorial Nexus is a legal principle used to determine the jurisdiction of a law or authority based on the territorial connection or nexus. It asserts that a law can be applied or enforced in a territory if there is a sufficient connection between the law and the territory. This doctrine is often invoked in cases involving legislative competence and jurisdictional issues.

5. Doctrine of Pith and Substance

• The Doctrine of Pith and Substance is a legal principle used to determine the true nature and character of a legislation or law. It involves examining the main purpose and substance of the law rather than its form or title. This doctrine is often applied in cases where there is a dispute regarding the legislative competence of a law.

6. Doctrine of Colourable Legislation

• The Doctrine of Colourable Legislation is a legal principle that deals with the validity of legislation based on its true nature and intention. It asserts that a legislature cannot pass a law under the guise of a particular power if the true intention is to exercise a different power. In other words, the legislature cannot color or disguise its true intention while enacting a law.

7. Doctrine of Implied Powers

• The Doctrine of Implied Powers is a legal principle that recognizes the existence of certain powers that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or law but are essential for the effective functioning of the government or authority. This doctrine allows for the exercise of implied powers to carry out the objectives and purposes of the Constitution or law.

8. Doctrine of Incidental and Ancillary Powers

• The Doctrine of Incidental and Ancillary Powers is a legal principle that recognizes the existence of certain powers that are necessary and incidental to the exercise of a specific power. These powers are considered ancillary or subordinate to the main power and are essential for the effective implementation of the main power. This doctrine allows for the exercise of incidental and ancillary powers to achieve the objectives of the main power.

9. Doctrine of Precedent

• The Doctrine of Precedent is a legal principle that emphasizes the importance of following established legal precedents or decisions in similar cases. It asserts that courts should adhere to the principles and rules laid down in previous judgments unless there are compelling reasons to depart from them. This doctrine ensures consistency and predictability in the legal system.

10. Doctrine of Occupied Field

• The Doctrine of Occupied Field is a legal principle that pertains to the division of legislative powers between the Centre and the States in India. It asserts that once a field or subject matter is occupied by a law enacted by one level of government, the other level cannot legislate on the same subject unless the law is repealed or modified. This doctrine helps avoid conflicts and overlaps in legislative jurisdiction.

11. Doctrine of Prospective Overruling

• The Doctrine of Prospective Overruling is a legal principle that allows a court to declare a new rule or principle of law to apply prospectively, i.e., to future cases, rather than retrospectively to past cases. This doctrine is invoked to avoid disturbing settled matters and to give parties an opportunity to conform to the new rule.

12. Doctrine of Harmonious Construction

• The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction is a legal principle that aims to reconcile and harmonize conflicting provisions or statutes to give effect to the intention of the legislature. It asserts that when there are conflicting provisions, they should be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to both and avoids any conflict. This doctrine promotes the coherence and integrity of the legal system.

13. Doctrine of Liberal Interpretation

• The Doctrine of Liberal Interpretation is a legal principle that advocates for a broad and liberal interpretation of statutes, provisions, or rights to achieve the underlying purpose and objectives. It asserts that laws should be interpreted in a manner that promotes justice, fairness, and the intended benefits of the law, rather than being confined to a narrow literal interpretation.

Other Powers of the Supreme Court

• Dispute Resolution: The Supreme Court has the authority to resolve disputes regarding the election of the President and Vice-President of India. Its decision in this matter is original, exclusive, and final.
• Conduct Inquiry: The Court can investigate the conduct of the Chairman and members of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), State Public Service Commissions (SPSCs), or Jharkhand State Public Service Commission (JSPSC) if referred by the President. If found guilty of misconduct, the Court can recommend their removal to the President, and this advice is binding.
• Case Withdrawal and Transfer: The Supreme Court can withdraw cases from High Courts and dispose of them itself. It also has the power to transfer cases or appeals from one High Court to another.
• Binding Authority: The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India. Its decrees and orders are enforceable throughout the country, and all authorities, civil and judicial, must assist the Supreme Court in its functions.
• Judicial Superintendence: The Court exercises judicial superintendence and control over all courts and tribunals across the country.
• Jurisdiction and Powers: The Parliament can expand the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and powers concerning matters in the Union List. Its jurisdiction and powers regarding other matters can be enlarged by a special agreement between the Centre and the states.

Comparison of Indian and American Supreme Courts

Differences in Jurisdiction and Powers

Indian Supreme Court

• Jurisdiction is not limited to federal cases; it can hear a broader range of cases.
• Original jurisdiction includes constitutional, criminal, and other cases, not just federal matters.
• Appellate jurisdiction covers a wide range of cases, including constitutional and criminal matters.
• Has the discretion to grant special leave to appeal in various matters, not limited to constitutional cases.
• Possesses advisory jurisdiction, allowing it to give advisory opinions on legal matters.
• Scope of judicial review is relatively limited compared to the American system.
• Defends citizen rights based on 'procedure established by law,' which may differ from the American principle of 'due process of law.'
• Jurisdiction and powers can be expanded by Parliament, providing flexibility in certain matters.
• Exercises judicial superintendence over state high courts due to the integrated judicial system in India.

American Supreme Court

• Jurisdiction is primarily confined to federal cases, including those involving ambassadors and naval activities.
• Original jurisdiction is limited to federal cases, particularly those involving ambassadors and naval activities.
• Appellate jurisdiction is restricted to constitutional cases only.
• Lacks the plenary power to grant special leave to appeal in various matters.
• Does not have advisory jurisdiction, limiting its ability to provide advisory opinions.
• Scope of judicial review is broad, allowing for extensive review of lower court decisions.
• Defends citizen rights based on 'due process of law,' ensuring fair legal procedures.
• Jurisdiction and powers are defined by the Constitution, limiting the Court's authority to what is expressly granted.
• Operates under a separated judicial system, lacking the power of judicial superintendence over state courts.

Acts Relating to the Composition of the Supreme Court

Act (Year)	Maximum Number of Judges Fixed (Excluding Chief Justice of India)	Maximum Number of Judges Fixed (Including Chief Justice of India)
Article 124 of the Constitution	7	8
Amendment Act, 1960	11	12
Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1977	13	14
Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1986	25	26
Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2008	31	32
Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019	34	35

Articles Related to Supreme Court at a Glance

Article No.	Subject-matter
124.	Constitution of Supreme Court.
124A.	Constitution of National Judicial Appointments Commission.
124B.	Functions of National Judicial Appointments Commission.
124C.	Power of Parliament to make law regarding Supreme Court.
125.	Salaries, allowances, and conditions of service of Supreme Court judges.
126.	Appointment of acting Chief Justice of India.
127.	Appointment of ad hoc judges in Supreme Court.
128.	Attendance of retired judges at sittings of the Supreme Court.
129.	Supreme Court to be a court of record.
130.	Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
131.	Exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in regard to questions as to constitutional validity of Central Laws (Repealed).

Introduction to Judicial Review

Judicial review is a crucial power in India that allows the judiciary to ensure that laws and actions of the government are in line with the Constitution. The Supreme Court and High Courts have the authority to review laws and executive actions to protect fundamental rights and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution.

1. Meaning:

• Judicial review refers to the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions.
• It ensures that all laws and actions comply with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

2. Judicial Review in India:

• In India, judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution, as established by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).
• The Constitution provides for judicial review under Articles 32, 226, and 136, among others.
• The Supreme Court and High Courts have the authority to strike down laws and executive actions that violate the Constitution.

3. Scope of Judicial Review:

• Judicial review extends to the examination of both legislative and executive actions.
• It covers laws passed by Parliament and State Legislatures, as well as actions taken by the President, Governors, and other executive authorities.

4. Grounds for Judicial Review:

• The grounds for judicial review include violation of fundamental rights, breach of constitutional provisions, and lack of legislative competence.
• The judiciary can intervene if a law or action is found to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or unconstitutional.

5. Importance of Judicial Review:

• Judicial review plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law, protecting fundamental rights, and maintaining the balance of power among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.
• It acts as a check on the abuse of power by the executive and legislature, ensuring that they act within their constitutional limits.

6. Landmark Cases:

• Several landmark cases have shaped the doctrine of judicial review in India, including:
• Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973): Established the basic structure doctrine, allowing the judiciary to review amendments to the Constitution.
• Minerva Mills vs. Union of India (1980): Reinforced the supremacy of the Constitution and the role of judicial review in protecting its basic structure.
• Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975): Struck down the 39th Amendment, highlighting the judiciary's role in upholding democratic principles.

7. Conclusion:

• Judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the Indian legal system, ensuring that the Constitution remains the supreme law and that the rights of citizens are protected.
• It empowers the judiciary to act as the guardian of the Constitution, maintaining the balance of power and upholding the rule of law in the country.

Constitutional Provisions for Judicial Review

The term 'Judicial Review' is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but various Articles grant the Supreme Court and High Courts the power of judicial review. Here are the relevant provisions:

• Article 13: Declares that laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are null and void.

• Article 32: Guarantees the right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcing Fundamental Rights and empowers the Court to issue orders or writs for this purpose.

• Article 131: Provides original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in centre-state and inter-state disputes.

• Article 132: Allows appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in constitutional cases.

• Article 133: Provides for appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in civil cases.

• Article 134: Allows appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in criminal cases.

• Article 134-A: Deals with certificates for appeal to the Supreme Court from High Courts.

• Article 135: Empowers the Supreme Court to exercise Federal Court jurisdiction under pre-constitution laws.

• Article 136: Authorises the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any court or tribunal, except military tribunals.

• Article 143: Authorises the President to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on legal questions and pre-constitution matters.

• Article 226: Empowers High Courts to issue directions, orders, or writs for enforcing Fundamental Rights and other purposes.

• Article 227: Grants High Courts supervisory power over all courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction, except military courts.

• Article 245: Deals with the territorial extent of laws made by Parliament and State Legislatures. (Added by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978)

• Article 246: Relates to the subject matter of laws made by Parliament and State Legislatures (Union List, State List, Concurrent List).

• Articles 251 and 254: Provide that central law prevails over state law in case of conflict, and state law becomes void.

• Article 372: Deals with the continuance of pre-constitution laws.

Scope of Judicial Review

Judicial Review in India

• In India, the constitutional validity of a legislative enactment or an executive order can be challenged in the Supreme Court or in the High Courts on the following grounds:
• Infringement of Fundamental Rights: If the enactment or order violates the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
• Competence of Authority: If it is beyond the competence of the authority that framed it.
• Repugnancy to Constitutional Provisions: If it is contradictory to the provisions of the Constitution.

Comparison with the USA

• The scope of judicial review in India is narrower than that in the USA.
• The American Constitution does not explicitly mention judicial review, but provides for 'due process of law'. In contrast, the Indian Constitution provides for 'procedure established by law'.
• Due Process vs. Procedure Established:
• Due Process: Allows the American Supreme Court to declare laws void on both substantive and procedural grounds, giving it wide scope to protect citizens' rights.
• Procedure Established: The Indian Supreme Court examines only the substantive question of whether the law is within the powers of the authority, without considering its reasonableness or policy implications.

Judicial Review in the USA

• The American Supreme Court's exercise of judicial review under the 'due process of law' clause has led critics to describe it as a 'third chamber' of the Legislature or a super-legislature, acting as an arbiter of social policy.

Judicial Supremacy vs. Parliamentary Supremacy

• While the American principle of judicial supremacy is recognized in India, it is limited in scope.
• India does not fully follow the British principle of parliamentary supremacy either.
• There are limitations on the sovereignty of Parliament in India due to the written Constitution, federalism with division of powers, Fundamental Rights, and judicial review.
• India practices a synthesis of both the American principle of judicial supremacy and the British principle of parliamentary supremacy.

Judicial Review of the Ninth Schedule

Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule

• Article 31B protects acts and regulations listed in the Ninth Schedule from being challenged on the grounds of violating Fundamental Rights.
• This provision, along with the Ninth Schedule, was introduced by the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act of 1951.

Original vs. Current Contents of the Ninth Schedule

• Initially, the Ninth Schedule contained only 13 acts and regulations in 1951.
• As of now, there are 282 entries, with state legislature acts primarily concerning land reforms and the abolition of the zamindari system, while Parliament deals with other matters.

Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)

• The Supreme Court ruled that acts and regulations included in the Ninth Schedule could be challenged if they violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
• This established that not all entries in the Ninth Schedule are immune from judicial review.

Waman Rao Case (1980)

• The Court clarified that acts and regulations added to the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, are valid only if they do not damage the basic structure of the Constitution.

I.R. Coelho Case (2007)

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that laws included in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, are subject to judicial review.
• Judicial review is considered a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be removed by placing a law in the Ninth Schedule.
• Laws can be challenged if they violate Fundamental Rights (Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21) or the basic structure of the Constitution.

Conclusions from the I.R. Coelho Case

• Laws that abrogate or abridge rights in Part III of the Constitution may or may not violate the basic structure doctrine.
• If a law violates basic structure, it can be invalidated through judicial review, regardless of its form.
• The validity of Ninth Schedule laws should be assessed based on their impact on rights guaranteed in Part III.
• Amendments including laws in the Ninth Schedule post-April 24, 1973, must align with basic structure principles, particularly Articles 14, 19, and 21.
• Even if an act is placed in the Ninth Schedule, it can be challenged if it damages basic structure by infringing fundamental rights.
• Protection conferred on Ninth Schedule laws is not absolute and depends on the nature and extent of fundamental rights infringement.

Indira Gandhi Case and Basic Structure Doctrine

• The Indira Gandhi case and Kesavananda Bharati case require evaluating the validity of constitutional amendments on a case-by-case basis.
• The impact of amendments on rights in Part III is crucial for determining their compatibility with basic structure.

Rights Test vs. Essence of the Right Test

• Both tests are part of the basic structure doctrine and help assess the validity of laws infringing fundamental rights.
• In situations where an entire chapter of the Constitution is made inapplicable, the "rights test" is more relevant than the "essence of the right" test.

Challenge to Ninth Schedule laws: Laws in the Ninth Schedule that have been previously upheld by the Court cannot be challenged again based on the principles established in this judgment. However, if a law that was found to violate rights in Part III is later included in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, it can be challenged on the grounds that it undermines the basic structure as per Article 21 in conjunction with Articles 14 and 19. Action taken: Actions and transactions resulting from the contested Acts are not subject to challenge.

Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975)
Number of Acts and Regulations in the Ninth Schedule: The table outlines the number of Acts and Regulations included in the Ninth Schedule before and after April 24, 1973, along with the respective amendment years.