supreme court of india

1. The Supreme Court of India: Composition, Appointment of Judges and
Other Details!
The entire judicature has been divided into three tiers. At the top, there is a
Supreme Court below it is High Court and the lowest rank is occupied by
Session’s Court.
The Supreme Court is the highest court of law. The Constitution says that the
law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all small courts within
the territory of India. Supreme Court was designed to make it the final
authority in the interpretation of the Constitution.
While framing the judicial provisions, the Constituent Assembly gave a great
deal of attention to such issues as the independence of the courts the powers
of the Supreme Court and the issue of judicial review.
Composition:
Parliament has the power to make laws regulating the constitution,
organisation of the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court. The number
of judges can be increased as well as decreased by Parliament. Originally
there was a provision in the Constitution that there will be Chief Justice and
seven other judges. This number (7) was raised to 10 in 1956, 13 in 1960, 17
in 1977 and 25 in 1985 (Article 124).
Appointment of Judges:
The President is the appointing authority in the case of judges of the Supreme
Court. Article 124(a). While making appointment of the Chief Justice of India,
he may consult such of the judges of the Supreme Court and of the High
Court’s as he might consider necessary.

2. While making appointment of other judges of the Supreme Court, the Chief
Justice shall always be consulted (Article 124(i)). In addition to regular judges,
if the President feels that the work load is heavy, he can appoint ad hoc
judges as well. He is also empowered to invite retired judges to attend the
meeting of the court.
Qualification of Judges:
To eliminate politics in the appointment of judges, high minimum qualifications
have been prescribed.
A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme
Court unless he is (a) a citizen of India and (b) either a distinguished jurist; or
has been a High Court Judge for at least 5 years or has been an Advocate of
a high Court (or two or more such Courts in succession) for at least 10 years
‘Art. 124 (3).
Tenure of Judges:
No minimum age is prescribed for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme
Court, nor any fixed period of office. Once appointed, a Judge of the Supreme
Court may cease to be so on the happening of any one of the following
contingencies; (other than death) (a) on attaining the age of 65 years; (b) on
resigning his office by writing addressed to the President; (c) on being
removed by the President upon an address to that effect being passed by a
special majority of each House of Parliament viz. a majority of the total
membership of that House and by majority of not less than two-thirds of the
members of that House present and voting. The only grounds upon which
such removal may take place are (1) ‘proved misbehaviour’ and (2)
‘incapacity’.

3. The age of the Judge of the Supreme Court shall be determined by such
authority and in such a manner as Parliament may by law provide. This
provision was inserted by Fifteenth Amendment Act 963.
Salaries and Emoluments:
A judge of the Supreme Court gets a salary of Rs. 30,000 per month and the
use of an official residence free of rent. The salary of the Chief Justice is Rs.
33,000 per month. (According to the 1998 revision).
Independence of Judges:
Independence of Supreme Court Judge Ensured:
The independence of the Judges of the Supreme Court is sought to be
secured by the Constitution in a number of ways:
(i) Though the appointing authority is the President, acting with the advice of
his Council of Ministers, the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge has been
removed from area of pure politics by requiring the President to consult the
Chief Justice of India in the matter.
(ii) By laying down that a Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed by
the President, except by a difficult process on ground of proved misbehaviour
or incapacity of the Judge in question [Article 124 (4)].
(iii) By fixing the salaries of the Judges by the Constitution and providing that
though the allowances, leave and pension may be determined by law made
by Parliament, these shall not be varied to the disadvantage of a Judge during
his term of office [Art. 125 (2)]. But it will be competent for the President to
override this guarantee, under a proclamation of ‘Financial Emergency, [Art.
360 (4) (b)].

4. (iv) By providing that the administrative expenses of the Supreme Court, the
salaries and allowances, etc., of the Judges as well as of the staff of the
Supreme Court shall be ‘charged upon the revenues of India’ i.e., shall not be
subject to vote in Parliament [Article 146 (3)].
(v) By forbidding the discussion of the conduct of a Judge of the Supreme
Court (or of a High Court) in Parliament, except upon a motion for an address
to the President for the removal of the Judge (Article 121).
(vi) By laying down that after retirement, a Judge of the Supreme Court shall
not plead or act in any Court or before any authority within the territory of India
[Article 124 (7)].
Ad hoc Judges:
Article 127 provides if at any time there is no quorum of the Judges available
in the Court to hold and continue any session of the court the chief justice of
India may, with the previous consent of the President and after the
consultation of the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned, request a Judge
of the High Court to act as ad hoc Judge in the Supreme Court for such period
as may be necessary.
Jurisdiction:
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is of three kinds—Original, Appellate
and Advisory—apart from the jurisdiction to issue the writs to enforce the
fundamental rights.
(a) Original Jurisdiction:
Art. 131 deals with original jurisdiction. By original jurisdiction we mean the
authority to hear and determine a case in the first instance. It has exclusive

5. jurisdiction to hear a case which cannot be heard or determined by another
court. The Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction will not be entitled to
entertain any suit where both parties are not units of the federation.
Thus a suit brought by a private individual against the State will not come
under this jurisdiction. Again international treaties etc. are outside the original
jurisdiction. In a federal polity the powers between the Union and the State
Governments are delimited and demarcated and, accordingly, it necessitates
the presence of an independent judicial authority empowered to interpret the
Constitution and secure the rights of the federation and the federating units.
The Constitution vests the Supreme Court with original and exclusive
jurisdiction in any dispute; (a) between the Union Government and one or
more States; or (b) between the Union Government and any State or States
on one side and one or more States on the other; or (c) between two or more
Stats, if the dispute involves any question of law or fact on which the
existence or extent of a legal right depends.
The Constitution excludes from the original jurisdiction disputes relating to
waters of inter-State rivers or river valley referred to a special statutory
tribunal, matters referred to the Finance Commission, adjustment of certain
expenses between the Union and the States.
Again, one class of disputes, though of a federal nature, is excluded from this
original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, namely, a dispute arising out of any
treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement; ‘sanad’ or other similar instrument
which, having been entered into or executed before the commencement of the
Constitution continues in operation after such commencement or which

6. provides that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute. But these
disputes may be referred by the President to the Supreme Court or its
advisory opinion.
(b) Appellate Jurisdiction:
As a court of appeal, the Supreme Court is the final appellate tribunal of the
land. There can be two types of cases—criminal, in which some criminal
activities are involved and civil, in which there may be disputes regarding
property, etc.
The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be further divided
under three heads:
(1) Article 132 of the Constitution provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court
from any judgement or final order of a court in civil, criminal or other
proceedings of a High Court, if it involves a substantial question of law as to
the interpretation of the Constitution. The appeal again depends upon whether
the High Court certifies and if does not, the Supreme Court may grant special
leave to appeal cases involving interpretation of the Constitution;
(2) Article 133 of the Constitution provides that an appeal in civil cases lies to
the Supreme Court from any judgement order or civil proceedings of a high
court. This appeal may be made if the case involves a substantial question of
law of general importance or if in the opinion of High Court the said question
needs to be decided by the Supreme Court i.e. civil cases irrespective of any
constitutional question;

7. (3) Article 134 provides the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction in
criminal matters from any Judgement, final order or sentence of a High court,
i.e. criminal cases, irrespective of any constitutional question.
Appeals can be made to the Supreme Court only by special leave of that court
but if a particular case involves a substantive question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution, an appeal can also be made to the Supreme
Court if the High Court concerned has certified that such a question is
involved.
The Supreme Court can, however, take up the case even if the High Court
has refused to grant such a certificate, if it is satisfied that a substantive
question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution is involved in the
case.
In all other cases, where constitutional questions are not involved, an appeal
can be made to the Supreme Court only if the High Court has certified that (a)
the case involves a substantive question of law, and (b) in the opinion of the
High Court, the said question should be decided by the Supreme Court.
So far as the criminal cases are concerned, an appeal can be made to
the Supreme Court against any judgment, final order or sentence in a
criminal proceeding of a High Court as of right concerning specified
classes of cases:
(a) In case the High Court has, on appeal against the decision of a lower
court, reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him
to death, or (b) in case the High Court has withdrawn for trial before itself any

8. case from any court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted
an accused and sentenced him to death.
These two exceptions make it very clear that in cases relating to a sentence of
death by the High Court, an appeal can always be made to the Supreme
Court. In other criminal cases, where a sentence of death is not involved, an
appeal can be made to the Supreme Court only on the basis of the High Court
certifying that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.
Parliament has the right to make laws if it so desires, conferring on the
Supreme Court further powers to her appeal on criminal matters. The
Supreme Court, however, has been vested by the Constitution with powers to
interfere in the decisions not only of the High Court but also of any other court
or tribunal within the territory of India.
“Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter”, says Article 131(1), the Supreme
Court may in its discretion grant special leave to appeal from any judgement,
decree, determination, sentence or order in any case or matter passed or
made by any court or a tribunal in the territory of India.” These are, indeed,
wide powers.
The Supreme Court under these powers can entertain and hear appeals by
granting special leave against any kind of judgement of order made by any
court or tribunal in any proceeding and the exercise of this power is left
entirely to the discretion of the Supreme Court.
No restrictions can be binding on the Supreme Court so far as these powers
are concerned excepting that it has been deterred by the Constitution to

9. interfere with decisions of a military tribunal and this power cannot be curtailed
by any legislation unless Article 136 itself as amended by Parliament.
(c) Advisory Jurisdiction:
The President may under Article 143(1) make a reference to the Supreme
Court for its consideration and opinion for any question of law or fact which is
of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain
the Court’s opinion on it.
The President may refer such a question not only where it has actually arisen
but also where it appears to the President that it is likely to arise. The
President can, accordingly, refer to the Supreme Courts the question whether
a proposed Bill will be intra Vires of the Constitution. Such references are
heard by a Bench consisting of a least five Judges and the Court follows the
procedure of a regular dispute that comes before it.
The opinion of the Court is pronounced in open Court. It may not be a
unanimous opinion and the dissenting Judges can give their separate opinion.
But the opinion of the Supreme Court is not binding on the President as it is
not of the nature of a judicial pronouncement. It is also not obligatory on the
Supreme Court to give its opinion; it may or may not.
Under Clause (2) of Article 143 the President may refer to the Supreme Court
for its opinion on disputes arising out of any treaty, agreement, etc, which had
been entered into or executed before the commencement of the Constitution.
In the case of such references, it is obligatory for the Supreme Court to give
its opinion to the President.

10. Technically, no court in India is bound by the advisory opinion of the Supreme
Court but such opinions are always respected by the courts.
(d) Writ Jurisdiction:
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain an application under Art. 32
for the issue of a constitutional writ for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights
are sometimes treated as an ‘original’ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It is
no doubt original in the sense that the party aggrieved has the right to directly
move the Supreme Court by presenting a petition, instead of coming through
a High Court by way of appeal.
Nevertheless, it should be treated as a separate jurisdiction since the dispute
in such cases is not between the units of the Union but an aggrieved
individual and the Government or any of its agencies. In the matter of
Fundamental Rights, and of Fundamental Rights only, a citizen can move the
Supreme Court directly by presenting a petition to it without going to any lower
court at all and it becomes the responsibility of the Supreme Courts to ensure
that the rights treated as fundamental by the Constitution are enjoyed by
every citizen of the country.
Other Powers:
Decrees or orders passed by the Supreme Court in the interests of justice are
enforceable throughout the territory of India. The Supreme Court has also
been given the power under Article 142 to secure the attendance before it of
any person within the territory of India or to order the discovery and production
of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.
The supreme power of the Supreme Court, however, lies in its being the
ultimate interpreter and guardian of the Constitution in which capacity its

11. power embraces not only the interpretation of the Constitution but also that of
the laws of the Union, the States and local authorities.
Like the highest court in other countries, the Supreme Court of India, too, is
not bound by its own decisions. It can reconsider its own decisions provided
that such review is in the interest of the community and justice. An application
for review may be filed with the Registrar of the Court within thirty days after
its judgement is delivered in appeal and it should briefly and, distinctly state
the grounds for review.
The application for review must also be accompanied by a certificate by the
Bar Council that it is supported by proper grounds. Any such review is
undertaken by a larger bench than the one which passed the original
judgement. The Supreme Court’s power to review its earlier decisions helps it
to correct any decision which may be deemed erroneous.