Supreme Court — Composition & Appointment
The Supreme Court of India (Articles 124–147) is the apex judicial body. It was established on 28 January 1950, two days after the Constitution came into force.
| Feature | Details |
|---|---|
| Composition | Chief Justice of India + up to 33 other judges (total 34); Parliament can increase by law |
| Appointment | By President; Chief Justice = senior-most judge by convention (codified after S.P. Gupta case issues); other judges = on advice of CJI + collegium |
| Qualifications | Must be citizen of India; must have been a HC judge for 5 years, OR an advocate of an HC for 10 years, OR in the President's opinion an eminent jurist |
| Tenure | Until age 65; can resign; can be removed by impeachment |
| Salary charged to | Consolidated Fund of India (not voted by Parliament — ensures independence) |
| Practice after retirement | Cannot plead before any court or authority in India (Art. 124(7)) |
| Seat | Delhi (by default); SC can sit at other places with President's approval |
PYQ Trap: The Constitution originally specified only 7 SC judges (CJI + 6). The current strength of 34 was set by Parliament through legislation — the Constitution only says Parliament can prescribe the number. The SC has never been at full strength due to vacancies.
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
| Jurisdiction | Article | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Original (Exclusive) | 131 | Disputes between Centre and State(s); disputes between States. NOT for: pre-Constitution treaties; commercial disputes; disputes of non-political nature; disputes where another forum prescribed |
| Appellate — Constitutional | 132 | Appeals from any HC judgment involving a substantial question of Constitutional law; certificate from HC needed |
| Appellate — Civil | 133 | Appeals from HC in civil cases involving substantial question of law of general importance; HC must certify |
| Appellate — Criminal | 134 | Appeals from HC where: HC reversed acquittal and sentenced to death; HC withdrawn case and sentenced to death; HC certifies case fit for SC appeal |
| Special Leave Petition | 136 | SC may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment of any court/tribunal in India. This is the most frequently used jurisdiction. Discretionary — SC can refuse. |
| Advisory | 143 | President may refer any question of law or fact of public importance for SC's advisory opinion. SC can refuse. Opinion is NOT binding on President. Pre-independence treaties excluded. |
| Writ Jurisdiction | 32 | For enforcement of Fundamental Rights only; SC can issue 5 writs. This jurisdiction is itself a FR. |
| Review | 137 | SC can review its own judgment/order; must be done open court for death sentence matters |
The SC's Advisory Jurisdiction (Art. 143) is one of the most tested topics. Key facts: (1) The President refers — not Parliament; (2) SC CAN refuse to give opinion; (3) Opinion is NOT binding; (4) SC has given advisory opinions e.g. Delhi Laws Act 1951, Special Courts Bill 1978, Ram Janmabhoomi 1993.
High Courts
High Courts (Articles 214–231) are the highest courts at the State level. Each State has one HC, though some HCs have jurisdiction over multiple States/UTs (e.g., Bombay HC covers Maharashtra + Goa + Dadra & Nagar Haveli + Daman & Diu).
Key features: HC judges are appointed by President in consultation with CJI and Governor (for puisne judges, also Chief Justice of the HC). HC has original, appellate, revisional, supervisory, and writ jurisdiction (Art. 226). Writ jurisdiction of HC (Art. 226) is WIDER than SC (Art. 32) — HC can issue writs for FRs AND any other purpose (any legal right, not just FR). HC can also supervise all subordinate courts and tribunals in the State (Art. 227).
High Court judges serve until age 62 (compared to SC judges' 65). A HC judge can be transferred to another HC by the President on advice of CJI (Art. 222) — this has been used to ensure independent judiciary.
Judicial Review
Judicial review is the power of the SC and HCs to examine the constitutional validity of legislative enactments and executive orders. If found unconstitutional, they can be declared void.
Constitutional basis: Article 13 (laws inconsistent with FRs are void); Article 32 (SC's writ jurisdiction); Article 226 (HC's writ jurisdiction); Article 131–136 (appellate jurisdictions); Article 246 (legislative powers of Parliament — courts can check if Parliament legislated beyond its competence). Judicial review is a basic structure element of the Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati 1973, Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain 1975).
India has a limited form of judicial review — unlike the USA where courts can strike down any law, India's Article 13 limits judicial review to checking consistency with Fundamental Rights. However, courts have also developed the doctrine of ultra vires (beyond powers) for testing legislative competence under the 7th Schedule distribution of powers.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
PIL was developed by the Supreme Court in the late 1970s as a tool of social justice. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N. Bhagwati are credited with its development.
| Feature | Traditional Litigation | PIL |
|---|---|---|
| Locus standi (who can file) | Only aggrieved party | Any public-spirited person; even a letter/postcard to CJI |
| Purpose | Private rights enforcement | Public interest; rights of marginalised |
| Court | Any court | SC (Art. 32) and HC (Art. 226) |
| Suo motu | Not applicable | Court can take cognisance on its own |
Important PIL cases: Hussainara Khatoon (1979) — right to speedy trial; Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984) — bonded labour; Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) — sexual harassment guidelines at workplace (Vishaka Guidelines, precursor to POSH Act 2013); M.C. Mehta cases — environment protection; PUCL v. Union of India (2001) — right to food; Vineet Narain (1997) — CBI autonomy.
Safeguards for Judicial Independence
The Constitution provides several mechanisms to insulate the judiciary from political pressure: Security of tenure (judges cannot be removed except by impeachment — a difficult process); Salaries charged to Consolidated Fund (not voted by Parliament); Post-retirement restriction on practice (Art. 124(7)); Contempt of court powers; SC can penalise for its contempt; Parliament cannot discuss conduct of judges except during impeachment proceedings; Judges are not answerable for their judicial decisions.
Collegium System
The Constitution originally envisaged the President appointing judges in "consultation" with the CJI. Three landmark Supreme Court cases changed this interpretation:
| Case | Year | Ruling |
|---|---|---|
| S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (First Judges Case) | 1982 | "Consultation" doesn't mean "concurrence" — executive primacy in appointments |
| SC Advocates-on-Record v. Union of India (Second Judges Case) | 1993 | Reversed First Judges Case: "Consultation" = "concurrence"; CJI's opinion has primacy; Collegium of CJI + 2 senior-most judges established |
| Special Reference No. 1 (Third Judges Case) | 1998 | Collegium expanded to CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges; their unanimous or majority opinion binds the executive |
| NJAC Case (Fourth Judges Case) | 2015 | 99th Amendment establishing National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) struck down; collegium system upheld as basic structure |
Landmark Constitutional Cases
| Case | Year | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras | 1950 | Narrow reading of Art. 21; FRs are independent compartments (later overruled by Maneka Gandhi) |
| Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras | 1950 | Freedom of press implied in Art. 19(1)(a) |
| Kesavananda Bharati | 1973 | Basic Structure Doctrine; 13-judge bench (7:6) |
| Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain | 1975 | Free and fair elections = basic structure; struck down retroactive changes in election law via 39th Amendment |
| Maneka Gandhi | 1978 | Art. 21 expanded; golden triangle of 14, 19, 21 |
| Minerva Mills | 1980 | Balance between FRs and DPSPs = basic structure; 42nd Amendment partly struck down |
| Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan | 1997 | Sexual harassment guidelines at workplace (PIL case) |
| K.S. Puttaswamy | 2017 | Right to privacy = FR under Art. 21; 9-judge bench |
PYQ Traps — Common UPSC Mistakes
| Wrong Notion | Correct Fact |
|---|---|
| SC's advisory opinion under Art. 143 is binding | Advisory opinion under Art. 143 is NOT binding — it is advisory; President is not bound by it |
| SC writ jurisdiction (Art. 32) is wider than HC (Art. 226) | HC writ jurisdiction (Art. 226) is WIDER — covers FRs AND other legal rights; Art. 32 = FRs only |
| SC can be moved directly for any legal right violation | SC can only be moved under Art. 32 for FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS violations; for other legal rights, approach HC under Art. 226 |
| SC judges retire at 62 | SC judges retire at 65; HC judges retire at 62 |
| PIL can only be filed by an aggrieved party | PIL has relaxed locus standi — any public-spirited person; even a letter to CJI |
| Collegium system is mentioned in the Constitution | Collegium system is NOT in the Constitution — it was developed by SC through the Second and Third Judges Cases (1993, 1998) |
| SLP (Art. 136) can be filed against all orders | SLP cannot be filed against orders passed by courts/tribunals constituted under any law relating to armed forces |
| NJAC was upheld by SC in 2015 | NJAC was STRUCK DOWN by SC in 2015 (Madras Bar Association v. Union of India); collegium system restored |
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the different jurisdictions of the Supreme Court of India?
The Supreme Court has five jurisdictions: (1) Original exclusive (Art. 131) — Centre-State and inter-State disputes. (2) Appellate — Constitutional (Art. 132), Civil (Art. 133), Criminal (Art. 134) — all require HC certification. (3) Special Leave Petition (Art. 136) — discretionary; from any judgment of any court. (4) Advisory (Art. 143) — President refers questions; opinion is NOT binding; SC can refuse. (5) Writ (Art. 32) — for FR enforcement only; itself a FR. Additionally, Art. 137 allows review of own judgments.
What is PIL and how does it differ from ordinary litigation?
PIL (Public Interest Litigation) was developed in the late 1970s by Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer. Unlike ordinary litigation (where only aggrieved parties can file), PIL has relaxed locus standi — any public-spirited person can file, even by a letter/postcard to the CJI ('epistolary jurisdiction'). Courts can also take suo motu cognisance. PIL can be filed in SC (Art. 32) or HC (Art. 226). Key PIL cases: Hussainara Khatoon (speedy trial), Vishaka (sexual harassment guidelines), Vineet Narain (CBI autonomy), PUCL (right to food).
What is the difference between judicial review and judicial activism?
Judicial review is the power to examine whether laws and executive actions are consistent with the Constitution, and to declare them void if not (Art. 13, 32, 226). It is a basic structure element. Judicial activism is a broader philosophy where judges proactively use their powers to advance social justice — through PIL, expanding Art. 21 interpretations, issuing directions to the executive. Critics call extreme forms 'judicial overreach.' The Collegium system, NJAC case, and many PIL orders are examples of judicial activism.