Structure of Indias Unified Judiciary
In stark contrast to the United States, where federal and state laws are enforced by separate judicial systems—a federal judiciary for national matters and state courts for local ones—India has forged a unified judicial structure. At its apex sits the Supreme Court, followed by High Courts at the state level, and beneath them a tiered hierarchy of subordinate courts, including district courts and lower judiciary. This integrated framework, inherited from the Government of India Act, 1935, ensures that a single court system upholds both central and state laws. Thus, despite its federal character akin to the US, India maintains one cohesive system of fundamental law and justice.
The Supreme Court of India commenced operations on January 28, 1950, succeeding the Federal Court established under the same 1935 Act. Yet its authority far surpasses that of its predecessor: by assuming the appellate role once held by the British Privy Council, it emerged as the nation's ultimate judicial authority.
The Constitution addresses the Supreme Court's organization, independence, jurisdiction, powers, and procedures in Articles 124 to 147 of Part V. Parliament holds the power to refine these aspects through legislation, ensuring adaptability while safeguarding judicial integrity.
Strength of the Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court of India currently comprises thirty-four judges, including the Chief Justice of India and thirty-three other judges. This strength reflects a recent expansion notified by the central government in 2019, raising the total from thirty-one to thirty-four through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019.
Originally established with a modest bench of eight judges—one Chief Justice and seven others—the Parliament has periodically augmented this number to meet the growing demands of judicial business. Key increments include raising the other judges to ten in 1956, thirteen in 1960, seventeen in 1977, twenty-five in 1986, thirty in 2008, and finally thirty-three in 2019, enabling the apex court to handle an ever-expanding caseload more effectively.
Appointment of Supreme Court Judges
The President of India holds the authority to appoint all judges of the Supreme Court, a process enshrined in the Constitution to ensure judicial independence and competence. When appointing the Chief Justice of India, the President consults such judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as deemed necessary, allowing for a broad yet discretionary input from the judiciary.
For the appointment of other Supreme Court judges, the process requires consultation with the Chief Justice of India, along with such additional judges from the Supreme Court and High Courts as the President considers appropriate. Crucially, consultation with the Chief Justice is obligatory in these cases, underscoring the pivotal role of the judiciary's head in shaping the Court's composition. This structured mechanism balances executive prerogative with judicial wisdom, fostering a robust apex judiciary.
Evolution of Judicial Appointments: The Controversy over "Consultation"
The appointment of judges to India's higher judiciary, governed by Article 124(2) of the Constitution, has sparked enduring debate over the meaning of the term "consultation". The Supreme Court has progressively reshaped this concept through a series of landmark judgments, collectively known as the Judges Cases, balancing executive involvement with judicial primacy.
In the First Judges Case (1981), the Court interpreted "consultation" narrowly as a mere exchange of views, not requiring the President's concurrence with the Chief Justice of India (CJI). This stance was dramatically reversed in the Second Judges Case (1993), where the Court redefined consultation as effective concurrence. It ruled that the CJI's recommendation, formed after consulting the two seniormost judges, would bind the President in Supreme Court appointments. Building on this, the Third Judges Case (1998) expanded the process further. The Court mandated that the CJI consult a collegium comprising the four seniormost Supreme Court judges. The CJI's recommendation must reflect the collegium's collective view; if even two judges dissent adversely, it should not proceed to the government. Moreover, any recommendation bypassing these norms would not bind the executive.
This collegium system faced a direct challenge with the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, and the accompanying National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, which sought to replace it with a broader commission including the CJI, two senior judges, the Law Minister, and eminent persons nominated by a committee. However, in the Fourth Judges Case (2015)—the NJAC Reference—the Supreme Court struck down both the amendment and the Act as unconstitutional, arguing they undermined judicial independence by diluting the judiciary's primacy. Consequently, the original collegium system was restored, cementing its role in safeguarding the separation of powers.
Appointment of the Chief Justice of India
From 1950 to 1973, it was an established convention to appoint the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court as the Chief Justice of India (CJI). This norm ensured continuity and seniority in leadership. However, the practice was first breached in 1973 when A. N. Ray was elevated to the CJI post, superseding three more senior judges—a move that sparked widespread controversy over executive interference in judicial independence.
The pattern repeated in 1977, with M. H. Beg appointed as CJI by bypassing the then senior-most judge. These instances highlighted the government's broad discretion in such appointments. This executive leeway was decisively reined in by the Supreme Court through the Second Judges Case (1993), which mandated that the senior-most Supreme Court judge must invariably be appointed as CJI, thereby prioritizing judicial primacy and institutional integrity.
Eligibility for Supreme Court Judgeship
To qualify for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court of India, a candidate must meet specific criteria outlined in the Constitution. First and foremost, they must be a citizen of India. Beyond this, they need to satisfy one of three professional benchmarks: having served as a judge of a High Court—or successively across High Courts—for at least five years; having practiced as an advocate in a High Court—or successively across High Courts—for at least ten years; or being deemed a distinguished jurist by the President of India.
Notably, the Constitution imposes no minimum age requirement for such appointments, allowing flexibility in selecting experienced legal minds at various career stages.
Oath or Affirmation by Supreme Court Judges
Before assuming office, every judge appointed to the Supreme Court of India must take an oath or affirmation in the presence of the President—or a person authorized by the President for this purpose. This solemn ritual underscores the judge's unwavering commitment to the nation's foundational principles and their judicial responsibilities.
In this oath, the judge pledges to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as the supreme law of the land. They vow to safeguard the sovereignty and integrity of India against all threats. Furthermore, they promise to execute the duties of their office diligently, faithfully, and to the best of their ability, knowledge, and judgment—free from fear, favor, affection, or ill will toward any individual or group. Finally, they affirm their resolve to uphold both the Constitution and the laws of the land, ensuring impartial justice for all.
Salaries and Allowances of Supreme Court Judges
Parliament holds the authority to determine the salaries, allowances, privileges, leave, and pensions of Supreme Court judges, adjusting them as needed over time. A key constitutional safeguard ensures that these benefits cannot be altered to the judges' disadvantage after their appointment, except in the rare event of a financial emergency.
In 2018, these salaries saw a significant hike: the Chief Justice of India's monthly pay rose from ₹1 lakh to ₹2.80 lakh, while that of other judges increased from ₹90,000 to ₹2.50 lakh. Beyond salaries, judges receive a sumptuary allowance and enjoy perks such as free official accommodation, medical facilities, official vehicles, and telephone services.
Upon retirement, both former Chief Justices and judges are entitled to a monthly pension equivalent to 50 percent of their last drawn salary, providing financial security in line with their lifelong service to the judiciary.
Tenure of Judges in the Supreme Court
The Constitution of India does not specify a fixed term for judges of the Supreme Court, allowing their tenure to extend until certain conditions are met. This flexible approach ensures judicial independence while providing clear mechanisms for conclusion of service.
Primarily, a judge continues in office until attaining the age of 65 years. If any question arises about the exact age—such as through conflicting records—it must be decided by the authority and in the manner prescribed by Parliament through legislation.
A judge also has the option to resign voluntarily by submitting a written letter to the President, offering a straightforward path to step down.
In exceptional cases, removal from office is possible, but it requires the President's order based on a recommendation from Parliament, underscoring the high threshold for such action to safeguard judicial tenure.
Removal of Supreme Court Judges
The removal of a Supreme Court judge is a rare and rigorous process designed to safeguard judicial independence while ensuring accountability. Under the Indian Constitution, the President may issue an order removing a judge only after Parliament presents an address to that effect in the same session. This address must secure a special majority in each House—namely, a majority of the total membership of the House and at least two-thirds of the members present and voting. The only grounds for such removal are proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
The Judges Enquiry Act (1968) lays down the precise procedure for impeachment, transforming this constitutional provision into a structured mechanism. The process begins when a motion, signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha, is presented to the Speaker or Chairman. The presiding officer decides whether to admit the motion. If admitted, they constitute a three-member committee to investigate the charges. This committee comprises the Chief Justice of India (or another Supreme Court judge), a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist.
The committee conducts a thorough inquiry, and if it finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, either House of Parliament may proceed to consider the motion. For the address to be presented to the President, the motion must then pass in both Houses with the requisite special majority. Only upon receiving this address does the President issue the final removal order.
Remarkably, no Supreme Court judge has ever been successfully impeached. The closest instance occurred with Justice V. Ramaswami between 1991 and 1993. Although the inquiry committee held him guilty of misbehaviour, the motion failed in the Lok Sabha due to abstentions by the Congress Party, underscoring the high threshold for such actions.
Appointment of Acting Chief Justice
To ensure the seamless functioning of the Supreme Court, the President of India holds the authority to appoint a sitting judge as the Acting Chief Justice of India. This power is exercised in three specific scenarios: when the office of the Chief Justice of India lies vacant; when the Chief Justice is temporarily absent; or when the Chief Justice is unable to perform their duties. Such appointments maintain judicial continuity without interruption, safeguarding the apex court's operations during transitional periods.
Ad Hoc Judges in the Supreme Court
In rare instances when the Supreme Court faces a shortage of permanent judges, preventing it from holding or continuing its sessions due to a lack of quorum, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) steps in with a vital provision. Under such circumstances, the CJI may appoint a qualified judge from a High Court as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court for a temporary period. This appointment, however, is not unilateral: it requires prior consultation with the Chief Justice of the relevant High Court and the explicit previous consent of the President.
The selected High Court judge must meet the stringent qualifications for appointment as a Supreme Court judge. Once appointed, their primary duty shifts to attending Supreme Court sittings, taking precedence over all other responsibilities in their home court. During this tenure, the ad hoc judge exercises the full jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of a Supreme Court judge while faithfully discharging its associated duties, ensuring the Court's operations remain uninterrupted.
Ad Hoc Appointment of Retired Judges
In exceptional circumstances, the Chief Justice of India holds the power to invite a retired Supreme Court judge—or a retired High Court judge qualified for elevation to the Supreme Court—to serve temporarily as a Supreme Court judge. This arrangement requires the prior consent of both the President and the individual concerned, ensuring a deliberate and consensual process.
During their tenure, such a judge exercises the full jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of a regular Supreme Court judge and receives allowances as determined by the President. However, they are not considered a permanent judge of the Supreme Court for any other purpose, preserving the distinction between ad hoc and substantive appointments. This mechanism provides flexibility to address judicial exigencies without altering the Court's core composition.
The Seat of the Supreme Court
Article 130 of the Indian Constitution firmly establishes Delhi as the primary seat of the Supreme Court. However, it grants the Chief Justice of India (CJI) the flexibility to designate additional places for the Court to sit, provided this decision receives the prior approval of the President. This empowering provision is entirely discretionary—neither mandatory nor enforceable. Consequently, no judicial authority can issue directions to the President or the CJI compelling them to appoint alternative seats, preserving the executive and judicial leadership's autonomy in such matters.
Procedure of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court holds the authority to regulate its own practice and procedure by framing rules, subject to the President's approval. This ensures efficient and standardized handling of cases across its diverse jurisdiction.
For matters of profound constitutional importance—such as cases arising under the Constitution or advisory references from the President under Article 143—a minimum bench of five judges convenes to deliberate and decide. In contrast, all other cases are typically adjudicated by a single judge or a division bench, allowing flexibility based on the case's complexity and workload.
Judgments are pronounced publicly in open court, upholding the principle of transparency. Decisions are reached by majority vote, yet judges retain the freedom to express dissenting opinions when they diverge from the majority, enriching judicial discourse and safeguarding diverse perspectives.
Independence of the Supreme Court
In India's democratic framework, the Supreme Court holds a pivotal role. Serving as the federal court, the highest appellate authority, the protector of citizens' fundamental rights, and the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, it shoulders profound responsibilities. For the Court to discharge these duties effectively, its independence is indispensable. It must remain shielded from any encroachments, pressures, or interference by the executive (the Council of Ministers) or the legislature (Parliament), enabling it to administer justice impartially—without fear or favor.
Recognizing this imperative, the Constitution incorporates targeted provisions to secure the Supreme Court's independence and impartial functioning.
Mode of Appointment
Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President, who acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers—or the Cabinet. This process requires consultation with senior members of the judiciary, specifically judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. Far from granting the executive unchecked authority, this mechanism thoughtfully balances power: it curbs absolute discretion while shielding appointments from political pressures or other pragmatic influences, ensuring the selection prioritizes judicial integrity above all.
Security of Tenure
Supreme Court judges in India enjoy robust security of tenure, a vital safeguard for judicial independence. Unlike many executive appointees, they do not hold office at the pleasure of the President, even though he appoints them. Instead, removal can occur only through the precise procedure and on the limited grounds specified in the Constitution—typically involving proven misbehavior or incapacity via an impeachment process. This stringent protection is evident in practice: no Supreme Court judge has ever been impeached or removed from office.
Fixed Service Conditions
Parliament holds the authority to periodically determine the salaries, allowances, privileges, leave entitlements, and pensions of Supreme Court judges. A key safeguard ensures that these terms cannot be altered to the judges' disadvantage after their appointment, except during a proclaimed financial emergency. This provision guarantees the stability of their service conditions throughout their tenure, shielding the judiciary from undue financial pressures and upholding its independence.
4. Expenses Charged on the Consolidated Fund
A vital aspect of the Supreme Court's financial autonomy lies in how its expenses are funded. The salaries, allowances, and pensions of its judges and staff, as well as all administrative costs of the Court, are charged directly on the Consolidated Fund of India. Consequently, these expenditures are non-votable by Parliament, shielding them from approval or rejection through legislative votes. Parliament retains the right to discuss them, ensuring accountability without compromising judicial independence.
Prohibition on Discussing Judicial Conduct
A key safeguard for judicial independence lies in the Constitution's restriction on parliamentary debates. No discussion can take place in Parliament or any State Legislature regarding the conduct of Supreme Court judges while they perform their duties. This shield applies strictly, with one narrow exception: such matters may be raised only when Parliament is actively considering an impeachment motion against a judge. This provision ensures that judges remain insulated from political pressures, allowing them to uphold the rule of law without fear of extraneous scrutiny.
6. Ban on Practice after Retirement
A key safeguard for judicial independence lies in the lifelong restriction imposed on retired Supreme Court judges: they are barred from pleading or acting in any court or before any authority across India. This provision prevents any perception of bias, ensuring that serving judges do not tilt decisions in anticipation of post-retirement professional favors. By severing these potential conflicts, it upholds the highest standards of impartiality throughout their careers.
7. Power to Punish for Contempt
Under Article 129 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court serves as a court of record with the inherent authority to punish any person or entity for contempt of itself. This vital power shields the judiciary from actions that scandalize its authority, obstruct the course of justice, or undermine its dignity and honor. By deterring unwarranted interference or malicious attacks, it ensures the Court's decisions and proceedings remain insulated from disruption, thereby upholding the rule of law—though fair and reasoned criticism remains protected under the law.
Chief Justices Staff Appointment Authority
- Freedom to Appoint its Staff
A cornerstone of the Supreme Court's independence lies in the Chief Justice of India's exclusive authority to appoint its officers and servants, insulated from any executive meddling. This power extends to prescribing their conditions of service, reinforcing the judiciary's administrative autonomy and shielding it from external pressures.
9. Its Jurisdiction Cannot be Curtailed
Parliament holds no authority to diminish the jurisdiction or powers of the Supreme Court. The Constitution firmly entrenches a broad spectrum of jurisdictions for the Court—ranging from original to appellate and advisory roles—ensuring their permanence. While Parliament cannot erode these foundational guarantees, it retains the flexibility to expand them through appropriate legislation, thereby adapting the Court's reach to evolving national needs.
10. Separation from Executive
The Indian Constitution mandates that the State must take concrete steps to separate the judiciary from the executive within public services. At its core, this principle ensures that executive authorities no longer exercise judicial powers, safeguarding the independence of the courts. With its full implementation, the executive's longstanding role in judicial administration came to a decisive end, marking a pivotal step toward an impartial legal system.
Jurisdiction and Powers of the Supreme Court
The Constitution endows the Supreme Court of India with extraordinarily broad jurisdiction and formidable powers, setting it apart from its global counterparts. Unlike the strictly federal Supreme Court of the United States, India's apex court also serves as the ultimate court of appeal, akin to the British House of Lords in its pre-reform days. Beyond these roles, it stands as the final interpreter and protector of the Constitution, the steadfast guardian of citizens' fundamental rights, and a body equipped with advisory and supervisory authority. This unique expanse prompted Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar, a key member of the Constitution's Drafting Committee, to observe that "the Supreme Court of India has more powers than any other Supreme Court in any part of the world."
These powers and jurisdictions fall into several interconnected categories, each reinforcing the Court's pivotal role in the nation's legal framework. Its original jurisdiction allows it to hear certain disputes directly, such as those between the central government and states or involving fundamental rights. Complementing this is its writ jurisdiction, empowering the Court to issue writs like habeas corpus or mandamus to enforce rights and check executive overreach. The appellate jurisdiction positions it as the highest court of appeal, reviewing decisions from High Courts on substantial questions of law or fact.
Further bolstering its authority are the advisory jurisdiction, where the President may seek its opinion on matters of public importance; its designation as a court of record, whose judgments bind all courts below; and the sweeping power of judicial review, enabling it to strike down laws or actions violating the Constitution. The Court also plays a central role in constitutional interpretation, evolving landmark doctrines to adapt the foundational document to contemporary challenges. Rounding out its arsenal are other powers, including contempt proceedings, enforcement of decrees, and oversight of subordinate judiciary, ensuring a robust and unified judicial system.
Supreme Court Original Jurisdiction in Federal Disputes
As the apex court in India's federal structure, the Supreme Court holds original jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between the various units of the federation. This encompasses three key categories: disputes between the Union (Centre) and one or more states; disputes pitting the Centre and certain states against other states; and disputes between two or more states themselves. Crucially, this jurisdiction is exclusive, meaning no other court in the land can hear such matters, and original, allowing the Supreme Court to address them directly as the court of first instance rather than on appeal.
Two essential conditions govern this jurisdiction. First, the dispute must hinge on a question of law or fact that determines the existence or extent of a legal right—purely political questions fall outside its purview. Second, private citizens cannot invoke this jurisdiction to sue the Centre or a state; only the governmental entities involved can bring such cases.
This authority does not extend to several specific areas. It excludes disputes rooted in pre-Constitution treaties, agreements, covenants, sanads, or similar instruments. Likewise, it bypasses treaties or agreements that explicitly bar Supreme Court involvement. Inter-state water disputes, matters referred to the Finance Commission, adjustments of certain expenses and pensions between the Centre and states, ordinary commercial disputes between them, and claims by a state for damages against the Centre are all similarly exempted.
The first case under this jurisdiction arose in 1961, when West Bengal sued the Centre, challenging the constitutional validity of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, enacted by Parliament. The Supreme Court dismissed the suit, affirming the Act's validity and setting an early precedent for federal dispute resolution.
2. Writ Jurisdiction
The Constitution positions the Supreme Court as the ultimate guardian of citizens' fundamental rights, empowering it to issue five key writs—habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari—to enforce these rights when violated. This authority forms part of the Court's original jurisdiction, allowing an aggrieved individual to approach it directly, without needing to exhaust lower courts or file an appeal. Yet, this power is not the Supreme Court's alone. High Courts share concurrent jurisdiction, meaning a citizen whose fundamental rights are infringed can choose to petition either the Supreme Court or the relevant High Court straightaway.
This writ jurisdiction under fundamental rights differs sharply from the Supreme Court's exclusive original jurisdiction over federal disputes, such as those between the Centre and states. In federal cases, only the Supreme Court can intervene, and the disputants are governmental units of the federation. By contrast, writ petitions typically pit a private citizen against the government—be it central or state—and involve parallel access to High Courts.
A further distinction lies between the writ powers of the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Supreme Court issues writs solely to protect fundamental rights, limiting its scope to constitutional guarantees under Part III. High Courts, however, wield broader authority: they can grant writs not just for fundamental rights violations but also for "other purposes," such as enforcing legal rights or correcting administrative excesses under Article 226. This makes High Court writ jurisdiction more expansive. That said, Parliament holds the flexibility to extend the Supreme Court's writ powers beyond fundamental rights through legislation, if needed.
Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India not only succeeded the Federal Court but also assumed the role of the Privy Council as the nation's highest appellate authority. Primarily a court of appeal, it reviews judgments from lower courts across a broad spectrum of cases. This expansive appellate jurisdiction falls into four key categories: constitutional matters, civil matters, criminal matters, and appeals by special leave.
In constitutional matters, a party may appeal a High Court judgment to the Supreme Court if the High Court certifies that it involves a substantial question of constitutional law. With this certification, the appeal proceeds on the grounds that the High Court erred in its interpretation.
For civil matters, appeals lie from High Court judgments when the court certifies two conditions: first, that the case raises a substantial question of law of general importance; and second, that the Supreme Court must decide it. Initially, such appeals required a claim value exceeding ₹20,000, but the 30th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1972 removed this monetary threshold, broadening access significantly.
The Supreme Court's criminal appellate jurisdiction covers specific High Court judgments. An appeal is a matter of right—without needing certification—in cases where the High Court reverses an acquittal and imposes the death penalty, or withdraws a subordinate court case and hands down a death sentence. Certification is required, however, if the High Court deems the case fit for Supreme Court review. Notably, no appeal lies if the High Court reverses a conviction and orders acquittal.
Parliament expanded this jurisdiction in 1970 to include appeals as of right from High Court judgments that reverse an acquittal and impose life imprisonment or a minimum of ten years, or where the High Court withdraws and convicts with such a sentence. Beyond these, the Supreme Court inherits the Federal Court's authority over any residual civil or criminal appeals from High Courts not otherwise covered.
Finally, under appeals by special leave, the Supreme Court holds discretionary power to grant leave to appeal any judgment—final or interlocutory—from courts or tribunals nationwide (excluding military tribunals and courts-martial). This extraordinary provision has four defining features: it is purely discretionary and not claimable as a right; it applies to any type of judgment; it spans all subjects, from constitutional and civil issues to criminal, tax, labor, revenue, or professional matters; and it extends to any court or tribunal, not just High Courts. This grants the Supreme Court plenary jurisdiction, though it must be exercised sparingly. As the Court itself observed, this "exceptional and overriding power" demands caution, reserved for special and extraordinary situations, unbound by rigid formulas or rules.
Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Under Article 143 of the Constitution, the President holds the authority to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on matters of significant public importance. This advisory jurisdiction—sometimes called consultative jurisdiction—covers two distinct categories. The first involves any question of law or fact that has arisen or is likely to arise, where the Court may choose to offer its opinion or decline. The second pertains to disputes stemming from pre-Constitution treaties, agreements, covenants, engagements, sanads, or similar instruments, in which case the Court is obligated to provide its view.
In both scenarios, the Supreme Court's response remains purely advisory, lacking the force of a binding judicial pronouncement. The President is free to accept or disregard it, yet this mechanism offers the government a valuable, authoritative legal perspective to guide its decisions.
As of 2019, Presidents have invoked this jurisdiction fifteen times, referring matters to the Court in chronological order as follows:
- Delhi Laws Act (1951)
- Kerala Education Bill (1958)
- Berubari Union (1960)
- Sea Customs Act (1963)
- Keshav Singh’s case, relating to legislative privileges (1964)
- Presidential Election (1974)
- Special Courts Bill (1978)
- Jammu and Kashmir Resettlement Act (1982)
- Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1992)
- Rama Janma Bhumi case (1993)
- Consultation process to be adopted by the Chief Justice of India (1998)
- Legislative competence of the Centre and States on natural gas and liquefied natural gas (2001)
- Constitutional validity of the Election Commission’s decision to defer Gujarat Assembly Elections (2002)
- Punjab Termination of Agreements Act (2004)
- 2G spectrum case verdict and mandatory auctioning of natural resources across sectors (2012)
The Supreme Court as a Court of Record
The designation of the Supreme Court as a court of record—a hallmark of its supreme judicial authority—confers upon it two essential powers that underscore its permanence and dignity. First, all its judgments, proceedings, and acts are meticulously recorded for perpetual memory and testimony. These records hold unquestionable evidentiary value: when produced before any court, they cannot be challenged or disputed. Moreover, they serve as binding legal precedents and authoritative references, shaping the evolution of law across the judiciary.
The second power is equally vital: the authority to punish for contempt of court. The Court may impose simple imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to ₹2,000, or both. In a landmark 1991 ruling, it affirmed its jurisdiction to penalize not only contempt against itself but also against High Courts, subordinate courts, and tribunals throughout the country. Contempt falls into two categories—civil or criminal. Civil contempt involves the wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, writ, order, or other judicial process, or the deliberate breach of an undertaking given to a court. Criminal contempt, on the other hand, encompasses three acts: (i) publishing or doing anything that scandalizes or lowers the court's authority; (ii) prejudicing or interfering with the due course of a judicial proceeding; or (iii) obstructing the administration of justice in any other manner.
Certain actions, however, fall outside the ambit of contempt. These include the innocent publication or distribution of material, fair and accurate reports of judicial proceedings, reasonable criticism of judicial decisions, and comments on the administrative aspects of the judiciary. Such safeguards preserve the balance between judicial sanctity and the freedoms of expression and fair critique.
6. Power of Judicial Review
At the heart of India's constitutional framework lies the Supreme Court's power of judicial review, which allows it to scrutinize the constitutionality of laws passed by legislatures and executive orders issued by both Central and state governments. This vital check ensures that no authority exceeds its bounds. If the Court determines that such enactments or orders violate the Constitution—making them ultra vires, or beyond legal authority—it declares them illegal, unconstitutional, and utterly null and void. Consequently, the government loses all power to enforce them, safeguarding the supremacy of the Constitution.
7. Constitutional Interpretation
The Supreme Court of India serves as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, authoritatively shaping the spirit, content, and precise wording of its provisions. Through its rulings, the Court breathes vitality into the document, ensuring its relevance amid evolving societal needs.
In this pivotal role, the Supreme Court draws upon a rich array of interpretive doctrines to navigate constitutional complexities. These established principles—ranging from the Doctrine of Severability and Doctrine of Waiver to the Doctrine of Eclipse, Doctrine of Territorial Nexus, Doctrine of Pith and Substance, Doctrine of Colourable Legislation, Doctrine of Implied Powers, Doctrine of Incidental and Ancillary Powers, Doctrine of Precedent, Doctrine of Occupied Field, Doctrine of Prospective Overruling, Doctrine of Harmonious Construction, and Doctrine of Liberal Interpretation—provide a structured framework for resolving ambiguities and upholding the Constitution's supremacy.
8. Other Powers
Beyond its core judicial roles, the Supreme Court of India wields a range of additional powers that reinforce its position as the guardian of the Constitution and the nation's highest judicial authority. These powers span electoral disputes, administrative inquiries, self-correction, case management, and overarching supervision.
The Court holds original, exclusive, and final authority to resolve disputes over the election of the President and Vice-President, ensuring impartiality at the apex of executive leadership. Similarly, on a reference from the President, it investigates allegations of misbehavior against the Chairman or members of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). If guilt is established, the Court recommends their removal—a binding advisory opinion that the President must follow.
A hallmark of its flexibility is the power to review and depart from its own judgments in the interest of justice or public welfare, making it a self-correcting institution unbound by strict precedent. A landmark instance occurred in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), where the Court overruled its earlier stance in the Golak Nath case (1967), introducing the groundbreaking "basic structure" doctrine of the Constitution.
The Court also exercises practical control over litigation by withdrawing cases pending before High Courts and deciding them itself, or by transferring cases and appeals from one High Court to another for fairness or efficiency. Its pronouncements carry nationwide weight: the law it lays down binds all courts in India, its decrees and orders are enforceable across the country, and every civil and judicial authority must assist in upholding them.
Finally, the Supreme Court enjoys broad judicial superintendence and control over all courts and tribunals throughout India. Parliament can expand its jurisdiction and powers concerning matters in the Union List, while special agreements between the Centre and states allow enlargement in other areas, adapting the Court's reach to evolving national needs.
Categories of Advocates in Supreme Court
In the Supreme Court of India, three distinct categories of advocates enjoy the privilege of practicing law, each with specific qualifications and roles.
Senior Advocates
In the Indian legal system, Senior Advocates represent an elite cadre of lawyers elevated for their exceptional prowess. The Supreme Court of India or any High Court may designate an advocate as a Senior Advocate, provided they consent and the court deems them worthy based on their ability, standing at the Bar, or specialized knowledge and experience in law. This distinction underscores a lawyer's preeminence, setting them apart as leaders in the profession.
However, this honor comes with stringent responsibilities that preserve the hierarchy and efficiency of court proceedings. A Senior Advocate cannot appear in the Supreme Court without an Advocate-on-Record, nor in any other court or tribunal without a junior advocate. They are also barred from accepting direct instructions to draft pleadings, affidavits, advise on evidence, or perform similar drafting tasks. Conveyancing work is likewise prohibited. The sole exception allows them to settle such documents in consultation with a junior, ensuring their expertise guides without compromising procedural norms. These rules, rooted in tradition and statute, maintain the dignity and specialization of senior counsel while fostering mentorship in the Bar.
Exclusive Privileges of Advocates-on-Record
Advocates-on-Record occupy a pivotal role in Supreme Court practice, serving as a select cadre of lawyers with exclusive privileges. Only they are authorized to file any matter or document before the Court, ensuring a structured gateway for litigation. Beyond this, they alone may enter appearances on behalf of parties or represent them directly in proceedings, underscoring their indispensable function in the judicial process.
3. Other Advocates
Beyond advocates-on-record and senior advocates, a broader category includes other advocates—those whose names are enrolled on the rolls of any State Bar Council, as maintained under the Advocates Act, 1961. These professionals enjoy the privilege of appearing before the Supreme Court to argue matters on behalf of parties. However, their authority is limited: they cannot file documents or initiate proceedings directly with the Court. This distinction ensures a structured hierarchy in Supreme Court practice, balancing accessibility with procedural rigor.