Q. 1. Describe the composition of the Supreme Court of India.
Ans. The Supreme Court, established under the Indian Constitution (Article 124), is the highest judicial authority in the country and occupies the apex position in the integrated judicial system. All courts in the States are subject to its authority and jurisdiction. The courts in India administer both Union and State laws and therefore the judiciary functions as a single, unified system.
- Composition of the Supreme Court: At the commencement of the Constitution the Supreme Court consisted of eight judges, including the Chief Justice. Article 124 empowers Parliament to determine and increase the number of judges. In April 1986 the number of judges was increased from 17 to 25, and in December 2008 it was increased from 25 to 30. The text given here states that at present the Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice and 30 other judges.
- Ad hoc Judges: Article 127(1) provides for the appointment of ad hoc judges. These are appointed by the Chief Justice of India with the prior consent of the President and are normally chosen from among judges of any High Court who are qualified to be appointed to the Supreme Court. They serve for such period as may be necessary to dispose of particular business before the Court.
- Appointment of Retired Judges: The Constitution also allows, with the prior consent of the President, the appointment of retired judges of the Supreme Court or of the Federal Court to sit and act as a judge of the Supreme Court when the Chief Justice of India requests this. Such appointments are made for particular business or for a specified period.
- Appointment of the Judges: The Chief Justice of India is appointed by the President after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts as the President may consider appropriate. In the appointment of other Supreme Court judges, the Chief Justice of India must be consulted by the President. A significant development occurred on 28 October 1998 when a nine-judge Constitution Bench held that recommendations made by the Chief Justice without following proper consultation were not binding on the Government. In practice the consultation process involves the Chief Justice consulting the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court before making recommendations.
- Qualifications for appointment of Judges: A candidate for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court must fulfil the following qualifications:
(1) He or she should be a citizen of India.
(2) He or she must have been a judge of one or more High Courts for five successive years, or an advocate of one or more High Courts for ten successive years.
(3) Alternatively, if in the opinion of the President the person is a distinguished jurist, they may be appointed.
- Term of office: Judges of the Supreme Court hold office until they reach the age of 65 years. In case of any discrepancy about a judge's age, the President's decision is final. A judge may resign by addressing a letter of resignation to the President before the completion of his or her tenure. Judges can be removed by the President on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting. An attempt to remove a judge is rare; for example, the 1993 motion to remove Mr Justice V. Ramaswami did not succeed in the Lok Sabha for want of the required majority.
- Salaries and Allowances of Judges: The Chief Justice receives a monthly salary of ₹ 2,80,000 and other Supreme Court judges receive ₹ 2,50,000 per month. Every judge is entitled to use an official residence without payment of rent and to travelling allowances for official journeys. The salaries and allowances of Supreme Court judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and are not subject to vote of Parliament. Their emoluments and privileges cannot be varied to their disadvantage after appointment, though the President may reduce them during a Proclamation of Financial Emergency.
- Prohibition of practice after retirement: Retired judges of the Supreme Court are debarred from pleading or acting as an advocate before any court in India. The restriction applies even if a judge resigns before retirement. However, retired judges may, with their consent, be invited to act as judges of the Supreme Court for specific business or periods; such persons receive allowances (not salary) determined by the President.
- Oath: On assuming office each judge of the Supreme Court must make and subscribe an oath or affirmation before the President or another person appointed by the President, in the form prescribed by the Constitution.
- Immunities of Judges: To safeguard judicial independence, the Constitution restricts discussion in Parliament concerning the conduct of a judge in the discharge of judicial duties. Similarly, actions and decisions of judges in their official capacity are protected from imputation of motive in parliamentary debates.
- Seat of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court sits in New Delhi. It may also sit at other places as the Chief Justice of India may appoint from time to time with the President's approval. On occasion the Court has held sittings at other locations, for example Hyderabad and Srinagar.
Q. 2. Discuss in brief the powers of the Supreme Court of India.
Or
Discuss the powers and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India.
Ans. The Supreme Court is the highest court in India and enjoys wide and varied powers. Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar observed that the Supreme Court of India has more powers than most apex courts elsewhere. Its jurisdiction may be classified under three main heads: original, appellate and advisory, together with several other important powers.
1. Original Jurisdiction: Original jurisdiction covers cases that begin in the Supreme Court and, in certain classes of disputes, are within its exclusive domain. The Constitution distributes powers between the Union and the States, and disputes often arise about the extent of those powers. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in disputes:
(a) between the Government of India and one or more States;
(b) between the Government of India and any one State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other side; and
(c) between two or more States.
Original jurisdiction applies only when the dispute raises a question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. If the claim is not dependent upon such legal questions, the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction.
Enforcement of Fundamental Rights: The Supreme Court is the ultimate guardian of Fundamental Rights. It has the power to issue writs - Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo Warranto - for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This jurisdiction is not exclusive to the Supreme Court; High Courts also possess the power to issue writs for the protection of rights.
To decide election disputes of the President and Vice-President: The Supreme Court has exclusive authority to decide disputes relating to the elections of the President and the Vice-President of India, and its decision in such matters is final. The elections of Dr Zakir Hussain (1967) and V. V. Giri (1969) were both subject to challenges decided by the Court.
2. Appellate Jurisdiction: The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court covers constitutional, civil and criminal appeals.
(a) Appeal in Constitutional Cases: Under Article 132(1), an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from any final order of a High Court if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. Even if such a certificate is not granted by the High Court, the Supreme Court can in suitable cases grant special leave to appeal.
(b) Appeals in Civil Cases: The 30th Amendment (1972) altered the monetary limit for civil appeals. Appeals to the Supreme Court in civil matters are now governed by whether the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance and whether the High Court considers it appropriate that the question should be decided by the Supreme Court.
(c) Appeal in Criminal Cases: Article 134 provides for appeals in certain criminal matters from the High Courts to the Supreme Court, particularly where a High Court has reversed an acquittal and sentenced the accused to death, or where a High Court on trial has convicted and sentenced a person to death, or where the High Court certifies that the case is fit for appeal. Parliament may further extend criminal appellate jurisdiction by law. The 44th Amendment introduced Article 134-A, which requires the High Court to consider the question of granting a certificate for appeal immediately upon delivery of judgment, on oral application or on the court's own motion.
(d) Special Leave to Appeal: Article 136 vests in the Supreme Court the wide power to grant special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree or order of any court or tribunal in India. This is an important supervisory power and is available in appropriate cases even when other routes of appeal are closed.
3. Advisory Jurisdiction: Article 143 permits the President to refer questions of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its opinion. Such references are heard by a bench of at least five judges. The Court gives its opinion by majority, and judges may deliver separate or dissenting opinions. The advice given is not binding on the President and is consultative in nature.
4. Interpretation and Protection of the Constitution: The Supreme Court is the final authority for the interpretation of the Constitution and is charged with protecting its supremacy. The Court has exercised judicial review to test the validity of laws and executive acts against constitutional standards. For example, in Golaknath (1967) the Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights; later, in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case, the Court tempered that view by recognising Parliament's power to amend the Constitution but held that the basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated. The Court has also in later cases struck down provisions of amendments that violated constitutional limits.
5. Court of Record: The Supreme Court is a court of record. Its records are evidence and are accepted without question in other courts. It also has the power to punish for contempt of court and to impose fines or imprisonment for contempt of its authority.
6. Power Regarding Transfer of Cases: The Supreme Court may transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before one High Court to another High Court, in the interest of justice or for uniformity in decision-making.
7. Power to Review its Decisions: The Court may review its own judgements. Reviews are heard by a bench larger than that which gave the original decision and are a means to correct errors or consider new developments. The power of review has been used in important cases, for instance to reconsider the legal position on constitutional amendments.
8. Miscellaneous Functions: The Supreme Court performs several additional functions:
(i) It inspects and supervises the working of subordinate courts and may make rules for their efficient functioning.
(ii) It frames rules for the conduct of advocates practising before the Court.
(iii) It makes rules about the maintenance of records by the lower courts.
(iv) It initiates contempt proceedings to check malicious or scandalous attacks on the judiciary and to preserve the authority of the court.
(v) It issues directions for the enforcement of its decrees and orders; all civil and judicial authorities in India are constitutionally bound to act in aid of the Supreme Court.
Position of the Supreme Court in India: The Supreme Court of India holds a pre-eminent position as the final judicial authority and the guardian of the Constitution. Its decisions are binding on all courts and on all authorities of the Union and the States. Through its power to review legislation and executive action, it keeps both the Legislature and the Executive within constitutional limits and contributes to the development of law by interpreting statutes in the light of contemporary needs. As noted by Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and M. V. Pylee, the range and variety of the Court's powers make it not only the supreme judicial authority but also the protector of the Constitution and the rule of law.
