Supreme Court of India | Indian Polity for UPSC CSE PDF Download

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India holds the esteemed position of being the highest judicial authority and the final court of appeal as per the Constitution of India. It serves as the apex constitutional court, endowed with the power of judicial review.

India operates as a federal state with a unified judicial system organized into three tiers: the Supreme Court at the top, followed by High Courts, and then Subordinate Courts.

Brief History of the Supreme Court of India

• The Regulating Act of 1773 led to the establishment of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta, which was a Court of Record with full power and authority to hear complaints about crimes and to determine suits or actions in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa.
• Supreme Courts were later set up in Madras and Bombay by King George III in 1800 and 1823, respectively.
• The India High Courts Act 1861 abolished the Supreme Courts at Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, establishing High Courts for various provinces instead. These High Courts were the highest courts for all cases until the creation of the Federal Court of India under the Government of India Act 1935.
• The Federal Court was responsible for resolving disputes between provinces and federal states and hearing appeals from High Courts.
• After India gained independence in 1947, the Constitution of India was enacted on 26 January 1950, leading to the establishment of the Supreme Court of India, which held its first sitting on 28 January 1950.
• The Supreme Court's decisions are binding on all courts in India, and it has the authority to strike down legislative and executive actions that violate the Constitution, the distribution of powers between the Union and States, or fundamental rights.

Constitutional Provisions:

• The Indian Constitution outlines the Supreme Court's framework in Part V(The Union) and Chapter 6 (The Union Judiciary).
• Articles 124 to 147 detail the Supreme Court's organization, independence, jurisdiction, powers, and procedures.
• According to Article 124(1), the Supreme Court consists of a Chief Justice of India and up to seven other judges, unless Parliament decides otherwise.
• The Supreme Court's jurisdiction includes original,appellate, and advisory jurisdiction, along with various other powers.

Organisation of Supreme Court:

• Currently, the Supreme Court comprises thirty-one judges(one chief justice and thirty other judges).
• The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Bill of 2019 increased the judicial strength from 31 to 34, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
• Initially, the Supreme Court had a strength of eight judges(one chief justice and seven other judges).
• The Parliament has the authority to regulate the number of judges.

Seat of Supreme Court:

• The Constitution designates Delhi as the seat of the Supreme Court.
• The Chief Justice of India(CJI) has the authority to designate additional seats for the Supreme Court, but this requires the President's approval.
• This provision is optional and not mandatory, meaning that no court can direct the President or the CJI to appoint other places as the seat of the Supreme Court.

Appointment of Judges:

• Supreme Court judges are appointed by the President of India. The Chief Justice is appointed by the President after consulting with other judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as deemed necessary.
• Other judges are appointed by the President after consulting with the Chief Justice and other judges as deemed necessary. Consultation with the Chief Justice is mandatory for appointing judges other than the Chief Justice.
• From 1950 to 1973, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court was traditionally appointed as the Chief Justice of India. However, this convention was challenged in 1973 when A N Ray was appointed Chief Justice by superseding three senior judges. Similar instances occurred in 1977 with M U Beg.
• The Supreme Court, in the Second Judges Case (1993), established that the senior-most judge should be appointed Chief Justice of India.

Controversy Over Consultation and Evolution of the Collegium System

• The Supreme Court has interpreted the term ‘consultation’ in different ways over time.
• In the First Judges Case (1982), consultation was seen as merely exchanging views, not requiring agreement.
• However, in the Second Judges Case (1993), the Court changed its stance, stating that consultation meant concurrence.
• By the Third Judges Case (1998), the Court emphasized that the Chief Justice of India must consult a group of senior judges, not just act on his own.
• The Chief Justice is required to consult with four senior-most judges when making recommendations for appointments, and if there are differing opinions, the recommendation should not be sent to the government.
• Recommendations made by the Chief Justice without following these consultation norms are not binding on the government.

Collegium System:

• The Collegium System for appointing and transferring judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts emerged from the "three judges case" and has been in practice since 1998.
• Notably, the Collegium system is not mentioned in the original Constitution of India or in subsequent amendments.

Working of Collegium System and NJAC

• The Collegium recommends names of lawyers or judges for appointment to the Central Government, and vice versa.
• The Central Government considers the names suggested by the Collegium and may propose its own names for consideration.
• The Collegium reviews these suggestions and sends a final recommendation to the government for approval.
• If the Collegium resends the same name, the government is obligated to accept it, although there is no fixed time limit for the government’s response. This lack of a time constraint contributes to delays in judge appointments.
• Through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, the National Judicial Commission Act (NJAC) was established to replace the Collegium system for appointing judges.
• However, the Supreme Court upheld the Collegium system and declared the NJAC unconstitutional, citing concerns about political involvement in judicial appointments and the need to preserve the Independence of the Judiciary, which is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution's Basic Structure.

Qualifications of Judges:

• To be eligible for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court, a person must meet the following criteria:
• Citizenship: The individual must be a citizen of India.
• Judicial Experience: The person should have served as a judge of a High Court (or High Courts in succession) for a minimum of five years.
• Legal Experience: Alternatively, the individual could have been an advocate in a High Court (or High Courts in succession) for at least ten years.
• Distinguished Jurist: Alternatively, the person may be considered a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President of India.
• The Constitution does not specify a minimum age for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court.

Oath or Affirmation:

• Before assuming office, a person appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court must make and subscribe to an oath or affirmation before the President or a person designated by the President for this purpose. In the oath, a Supreme Court judge pledges:
• Faith and Allegiance: To bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India.
• Sovereignty and Integrity: To uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India.
• Duties: To perform the duties of the office duly and faithfully, to the best of their ability, knowledge, and judgment, without fear or favor, affection, or ill-will.
• Upholding the Constitution: To uphold the Constitution and the laws.

Tenure of Judges:

• The Constitution does not specify a fixed tenure for judges of the Supreme Court. However, it includes the following provisions regarding their tenure:
• Retirement Age: Judges hold office until they reach the age of 65 years. Any dispute regarding a judge's age is determined by the authority and manner specified by Parliament.
• Resignation: Judges can resign from their position by submitting a written notice to the President.
• Removal: Judges can be removed from office by the President based on the recommendation of Parliament.

Removal of Judges:

• A judge of the Supreme Court can be removed from office by an order issued by the President. This removal order can only be made after Parliament has presented an address to the President for this purpose during the same session.
• The address must be supported by a special majority in each House of Parliament, which 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.
• The grounds for removal are proved misbehavior or incapacity.
• The Judges Enquiry Act (1968) governs the procedure for removing a Supreme Court judge through impeachment.
• Notably, no judge of the Supreme Court has been impeached to date. Impeachment motions against Justice V Ramaswami(1991–1993) and Justice Dipak Misra(2017-18) were rejected by Parliament.

Salaries and Allowances:

• The Parliament determines the salaries, allowances, privileges, leave, and pension of the judges of the Supreme Court. Once set, these cannot be altered to the judges' disadvantage after their appointment, except during a financial emergency.

Acting Chief Justice:

• The President can appoint a judge of the Supreme Court as the Acting Chief Justice of India when:
• The office of Chief Justice of India is vacant.
• The Chief Justice of India is temporarily absent.
• The Chief Justice of India is unable to perform the duties of the office.

Ad hoc Judge:

• When there are not enough permanent judges available to hold or continue a session of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India can appoint a judge from a High Court 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 with the President's consent.
• The appointed judge must be qualified for Supreme Court appointment and is required to prioritize attending Supreme Court sessions over other duties.
• While serving, the ad hoc judge exercises all the jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of a Supreme Court judge and is responsible for the same duties.

Retired Judges:

• The Chief Justice of India can request a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a retired judge of a High Court (who is qualified for appointment as a Supreme Court judge) to act as a judge of the Supreme Court for a temporary period.
• This request can only be made with the prior consent of the President and the individual being appointed.
• The appointed judge is entitled to allowances determined by the President and enjoys all the jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of a Supreme Court judge during this period.
• However, the retired judge will not be considered a judge of the Supreme Court except for the duration of their appointment.

Procedure of Court

• The Supreme Court, with the President's approval, establishes rules to regulate its practice and procedure.
• Cases involving constitutional references by the President under Article 143 are decided by a bench of at least five judges. Other cases are typically decided by a bench of no less than three judges. Judgments are delivered in open court, with decisions made by majority vote. Judges may also issue dissenting judgments or opinions if they disagree.

Independence of Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court is a federal court, the highest court of appeal, and the protector of citizens' fundamental rights and the Constitution.
• Its independence is crucial for effectively fulfilling its duties. It must be free from interference by the executive(the council of ministers) and the Legislature(Parliament), ensuring justice is served without bias.
• The Constitution includes various provisions to safeguard the Supreme Court's independence and impartial functioning:
• Mode of appointment
• Security of tenure
• Fixed service conditions
• Expenses charged on the consolidated fund
• Conduct of judges cannot be discussed
• Ban on practice after retirement
• Power to punish for its contempt
• Freedom to appoint its staff
• Its jurisdiction cannot be curtailed
• Separation from Executive

Jurisdiction and Powers of Supreme Court

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

• The Centre and one or more states
• The Centre and any state or states against one or more other states
• Two or more states

In these federal disputes, the Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction. However, this jurisdiction does not extend to certain cases, including:

• Disputes arising from pre-Constitution treaties or agreements
• Disputes from treaties specifying the exclusion of Supreme Court jurisdiction
• Inter-state water disputes
• Matters referred to the Finance Commission
• Adjustment of certain expenses and pensions between the Centre and the states
• Ordinary commercial disputes between the Centre and the states
• Recovery of damages by a state against the Centre

Writ Jurisdiction:

• The Supreme Court has the authority to issue writs such as habeas corpus,mandamus,prohibition,quo-warranto, and certiorari to enforce the fundamental rights of aggrieved citizens.
• In this context, the Supreme Court possesses original jurisdiction, meaning that an aggrieved citizen can approach the Supreme Court directly without going through an appeal process.
• However, it is important to note that the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is not exclusive, as High Courts also have the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

Appellate Jurisdiction:

• The Supreme Court primarily functions as a court of appeal, hearing cases against judgments from lower courts. Its appellate jurisdiction is extensive and can be categorized into four main areas:
• Constitutional Matters: Appeals involving questions of constitutional interpretation or application.
• Civil Matters: Appeals pertaining to civil disputes and judgments.
• Criminal Matters: Appeals related to criminal cases and convictions.
• Special Leave Appeals: Appeals granted special permission to be heard by the Supreme Court, often for exceptional cases.

Advisory Jurisdiction:

• Under Article 143 of the Constitution, the President can seek the Supreme Court's opinion on specific matters, including:
• Legal or factual questions of public importance that have arisen or are likely to arise.
• Disputes arising from pre-constitution treaties or agreements.

A Court of Record:

• As a Court of Record, the Supreme Court holds the power to:
• Record Judgments: The Supreme Court's judgments, proceedings, and actions are recorded for perpetual memory and testimony. These records hold evidentiary value and cannot be disputed when presented before any court.
• Establish Legal Precedents: These records are recognized as legal precedents and references.
• Contempt Powers: The Supreme Court has the authority to punish for contempt of court, with penalties including simple imprisonment for up to six months, fines up to 2,000, or both.

Power of Judicial Review

• Judicial review empowers the Supreme Court to assess the constitutionality of legislative actions and executive orders from both the Central and state governments.
• If found unconstitutional (ultra vires), these actions can be declared illegal, invalid, and unenforceable by the Supreme Court.

Recent Issues in Supreme Court

Master of Roster:

• Master of Roster refers to the Chief Justice's authority to form benches for case hearings.
• Controversy has arisen over the Chief Justice's power in judicial administration.
• The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the Chief Justice has the sole right to constitute benches and allocate cases.
• Chief Justices of the Supreme Court and high courts oversee administrative matters, including case allocation.
• No judge can take up a case independently unless assigned by the Chief Justice of India.