The Indian Constitution has created a unified judicial system, which is different from the American system. At the top of this system is the Supreme Court, followed by high courts in each state. Beneath the high courts, there is a hierarchy of subordinate courts that include district courts and other lower courts. This structure was adapted from the Government of India Act of 1935 and allows for the enforcement of both Central and state laws through a single system of courts.

In contrast, the United States has two separate systems of courts: one for federal laws and one for state laws. This means that in the U.S., different courts handle different kinds of laws, creating a more complicated legal landscape. Even though India is a federal country like the U.S., it maintains a unified judiciary that ensures the same fundamental laws and justice apply across the nation.

The Supreme Court of India was established on January 28, 1950. It took over from the Federal Court of India, which had existed under the Government of India Act of 1935. The Supreme Court has broader powers than its predecessor and serves as the highest court of appeal after the British Privy Council was replaced.

Part V of the Indian Constitution, specifically Articles 124 to 147, covers important aspects of the Supreme Court. These articles deal with how the Supreme Court is organized, its independence, its jurisdiction, and the powers it holds. Furthermore, the Parliament has the authority to regulate various aspects of the Supreme Court's functioning, ensuring that it operates within the legal framework of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has the responsibility to uphold the Constitution of India and interpret laws. It ensures that justice is accessible to all citizens and protects their fundamental rights, which are laid out in Part III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court also plays a vital role in resolving disputes between states as well as between the Centre and the states, which is an essential function of its jurisdiction.

This integrated judicial system reflects the harmonious balance of power within India's federal structure, aiming for a cohesive interpretation and application of laws that align with the nation's values and norms.

Composition and Appointment of the Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial authority in the country and currently has thirty-four judges, which includes one Chief Justice and thirty-three other judges. Initially, the Supreme Court was established with just eight judges, comprising one Chief Justice and seven other judges. Over the years, Parliament has gradually increased the number of judges. The strength was raised to ten in 1956, then to thirteen in 1960. It continued to rise to seventeen in 1977, twenty-five in 1986, thirty in 2008, and finally thirty-three in 2019. This change in the number of judges is meant to ensure that the Supreme Court can handle the growing number of cases efficiently.

Appointment of Judges

The judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President of India. The appointment process for judges varies slightly between the Chief Justice and the other judges. The Chief Justice is appointed after the President consults with judges from the Supreme Court and High Courts. However, for appointing other judges, the President consults the Chief Justice and other judges as deemed appropriate. It is important to note that when appointing judges other than the Chief Justice, consulting the Chief Justice is mandatory.

Interpretation of "Consultation"

There has been some debate about what "consultation" means in the context of appointing judges. The Supreme Court provided different interpretations over the years. In the first case known as the "First Judges case" (1981), the Supreme Court decided that consultation meant an exchange of views, not necessarily agreement. However, in a later ruling called the "Second Judges case" (1993), the Supreme Court changed its stance, stating that consultation should imply agreement, making the Chief Justice's advice binding on the President when it comes to appointing judges.

In the "Third Judges case" (1998), the Court ruled that the Chief Justice must consult a group of senior judges, indicating that just one person's opinion is not sufficient. The Chief Justice is required to consult a collegium of four senior-most judges from the Supreme Court. If any two judges express disagreement during this consultation, the Chief Justice should not recommend the appointment to the government.

In 2014, the Government introduced the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act along with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, aiming to replace the collegium system. However, in a decision known as the "Fourth Judges case" (2015), the Supreme Court declared these new laws unconstitutional, reinstating the collegium system. The Court held that the NJAC could undermine the independence of the judiciary, ensuring that the earlier system of appointing judges continued.

Appointment of Chief Justice

From the establishment of the Supreme Court in 1950 up to 1973, the practice was to appoint the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court as the Chief Justice of India. However, this tradition was broken in 1973 when A.N. Ray was appointed Chief Justice, ignoring the claims of three senior judges. Again in 1977, another senior judge was overlooked when M.U. Beg was appointed Chief Justice. The Supreme Court's ruling in the "Second Judges case" (1993) curtailed the government's discretion in these appointments, reinforcing the principle that the senior-most judge must be appointed as the Chief Justice of India.

Relevant Articles and Laws

The laws and constitutional provisions regarding the appointment of judges can be found in Article 124 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the establishment and composition of the Supreme Court. Article 217 mentions the appointment of high court judges, while Article 222 discusses the transfer of judges between high courts. These articles ensure that the appointment process follows specific guidelines, aimed at maintaining the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

In summary, the composition and appointment of judges in the Supreme Court of India is a critical process governed by constitutional articles and judicial interpretations. The aim is to uphold the independence of the judiciary while ensuring that the most qualified individuals serve as judges.

Qualifications, Oath, and Salaries of Supreme Court Judges

Qualifications of Judges

To become a judge in the Supreme Court of India, a person needs to meet certain qualifications. First and foremost, the individual must be a citizen of India. There are a few paths that one can take to qualify for this prestigious position.

One option is for the person to have served as a judge in a High Court (which is a lower level of the Indian judiciary) for at least five years. Alternatively, the individual might have been an advocate, which is a type of lawyer, in a High Court for a minimum of ten years. Finally, if the person is considered a distinguished jurist— a legal expert—by the President of India, that also qualifies them. It's important to note that the Indian Constitution doesn’t specify a specific minimum age for someone aspiring to be appointed as a Supreme Court judge.

Oath or Affirmation

Before a new judge of the Supreme Court can officially start their job, they must take an oath or make an affirmation. This ceremonial act is performed in front of the President of India or someone designated by the President. The oath includes several important commitments. The judge pledges to show true faith and loyalty to the Constitution of India. They also vow to maintain the sovereignty and unity of the country. Furthermore, judges swear to carry out their responsibilities to the best of their abilities, without any bias or favoritism. Finally, they commit to uphold the Constitution and the laws of India. This process ensures that judges understand the seriousness of their role in the justice system.

Salaries and Allowances

Judges in the Supreme Court receive salaries and various benefits such as allowances, privileges, leave, and pension. These are set by the Parliament of India and can be revised over time. However, once judges are appointed, their salaries cannot be decreased, except in rare cases like during a financial emergency.

For instance, in 2018, significant increases in salaries were made, raising the Chief Justice's monthly pay from ₹71,000 to ₹2.80 lakh, while the salary for other judges was increased from ₹90,000 to ₹2.50 lakh per month. Apart from their salaries, judges also receive a sumptuary allowance, which helps cover additional expenses. They enjoy free housing and are provided essential facilities such as medical care, car services, and telephone services, ensuring they are well supported in their roles.

After retirement, both the Chief Justice and other judges are entitled to a pension, which is typically 50% of their last drawn salary. This framework is established under various laws and provisions, including Article 125 of the Indian Constitution, which gives Parliament the authority to decide on the conditions of service for judges.

In conclusion, becoming a judge in the Supreme Court of India involves meeting specific educational and career qualifications, taking an oath to uphold justice and the Constitution, and receiving government-determined salaries and benefits, all of which contribute to maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the judiciary in the country.

Tenure and Removal of Supreme Court Judges in India

In India, the Constitution does not specify a fixed term for judges serving in the Supreme Court. However, it outlines some key points regarding their tenure and removal. Understanding these provisions is essential to grasp the independence of the judiciary and how judges are held accountable.

A judge of the Supreme Court serves until they reach the age of 65 years. If there is any doubt about a judge's age, it is the responsibility of Parliament to determine this in the manner specified by law. Additionally, judges have the right to resign from their position by simply writing a letter to the President of India. This allows for a degree of voluntary turnover without the need for complex processes.

However, the removal of a Supreme Court judge is a more intricate procedure, reflecting the importance of maintaining judicial integrity. A judge can only be removed from office through an order from the President. This order can only follow a formal address by Parliament in the same session advocating for the judge's removal. For this address to be valid, it must be backed by a special majority in both Houses of Parliament. This special majority involves two conditions: a majority of the total members in each House must support the motion, and at least two-thirds of those present and voting must agree. The grounds for removal are serious: a judge may be removed for proven misconduct or incapacity.

The entire process of removing a judge is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, which lays down precise procedural requirements for impeachment. First, a motion to remove a judge must be signed by either 100 members from the Lok Sabha or 50 members from the Rajya Sabha. Once this motion is submitted to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, they can decide to admit or reject it.

If the motion is admitted, the Speaker or Chairman must set up a three-member committee to investigate the allegations against the judge. This committee is made up of the Chief Justice or another Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a respected jurist. If this committee concludes that the judge is guilty of misconduct or incapable of performing their duties, the matter can be brought before the House for further consideration.

To successfully impeach a judge, the motion must receive approval from both Houses of Parliament by the required special majority. After the motion passes in both Houses, an address is then presented to the President, who will issue the final order for the removal of the judge. Interestingly, despite such procedures being in place, no Supreme Court judge has been impeached to date.

The most notable case related to this procedure involves Justice V. Ramaswami, who served from 1991 to 1993. Although an inquiry committee found him guilty of misconduct, the motion for his impeachment failed in the Lok Sabha as the Congress Party abstained from voting. This case highlights the complexities and challenges involved in the impeachment process.

In conclusion, the provisions regarding the tenure and removal of judges in the Indian Constitution emphasize the balance between judicial independence and accountability. Articles 124(4) and 124(5) of the Indian Constitution explicitly outline the conditions under which a Supreme Court judge can be removed, reflecting the importance of safeguarding the integrity of the judiciary while ensuring that judges are held accountable for their actions. Understanding these regulations is vital for anyone interested in the functioning of the legal system in India.

Overview of Acting, Ad hoc, and Retired Judges in India

In the Indian judicial system, there are provisions for the appointment of acting judges, ad hoc judges, and retired judges to ensure that the Supreme Court can function effectively, even when there are vacancies or when judges are temporarily unavailable. This approach helps maintain the continuity and efficiency of the judiciary.

Acting Chief Justice

The President of India has the authority to appoint an acting Chief Justice of India in certain situations. This can occur if:

1. The position of Chief Justice of India is currently unoccupied (vacant).
2. The Chief Justice is away for a limited time due to any reason, such as illness or personal matters.
3. The Chief Justice is unable to perform his or her official responsibilities, perhaps due to health or other issues.

When appointing an acting Chief Justice, the President acts based on advice from the Prime Minister and other ministers, following the protocols laid out in the Indian Constitution.

Ad hoc Judges

An ad hoc judge is appointed to address situations when there are not enough permanent judges available in the Supreme Court to conduct its sessions. This situation is often referred to as a "lack of quorum." The Chief Justice of India can appoint a High Court judge as an ad hoc judge to serve temporarily, but this can only happen after consulting with that High Court's Chief Justice and obtaining the President's approval.

The appointee must meet the qualifications needed for a permanent judge of the Supreme Court. While serving as an ad hoc judge, the individual holds the same powers and responsibilities as any other Supreme Court judge. During this time, they must prioritize their duties in the Supreme Court over other obligations they may have at their regular position.

Retired Judges

The Chief Justice of India can also call upon a retired Supreme Court judge or a retired High Court judge to serve temporarily as a judge of the Supreme Court. To do this, the Chief Justice needs to secure the consent of the President and the retiree they wish to appoint. The retired judge must also have the necessary qualifications to hold the position.

When serving in this capacity, the retired judge is entitled to receive allowances determined by the President. While they enjoy all the jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of a regular Supreme Court judge, they are not formally recognized as a judge of the Supreme Court after their retirement.

Relevant Constitutional Articles and Legal Framework

These provisions are encapsulated mainly within Article 126, Article 127, and Article 128 of the Constitution of India. These articles outline the procedures for the appointment of acting and ad hoc judges to the Supreme Court. Article 126 specifically deals with the appointment of an acting Chief Justice, while Articles 127 and 128 cover the appointment of ad hoc judges and retired judges, respectively.

It is essential for the Indian judiciary to have these flexible provisions in place. They serve as a mechanism to ensure that justice is not delayed due to the lack of judges or prolonged vacancies. The goal is always to uphold the rule of law and maintain the timely administration of justice in the country.

Seat and Procedure of the Supreme Court

The Constitution of India designates Delhi as the main location for the Supreme Court. However, it also allows the Chief Justice of India to choose additional places as seats for the court if necessary. This decision can only be made with the President’s approval, which means that while it is possible for the Supreme Court to sit at other locations, it is not mandatory. No other court has the authority to direct either the President or the Chief Justice to choose a new location for the Supreme Court.

When it comes to how the Supreme Court functions, it has the power to establish rules that guide its operations, as long as these rules are approved by the President. This ensures that the court has a flexible way to manage its procedures while still being accountable to the top executive in the country.

For cases referred to the Supreme Court by the President under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution, a specialized bench made up of at least five judges is required to make a decision. This is intended to ensure that important constitutional matters are examined thoroughly by multiple experts. In contrast, most cases are heard by a single judge or by smaller groups of judges, known as division benches.

Judgments from the Supreme Court are delivered in open court, which means that the public can witness the proceedings. When the judges come to a decision, it is typically based on a majority vote. If the judges disagree with one another, they have the right to produce dissenting judgments or opinions, allowing for diverse perspectives on legal issues.

Overall, the structure and procedures of the Supreme Court are designed to ensure that justice is both accessible and fair, maintaining the rule of law while allowing for necessary flexibility. These principles are underpinned by various articles in the Constitution, including Article 124, which deals with the establishment and composition of the Supreme Court, and Article 145, which concerns the rules of the Supreme Court concerning its practice and procedure.

Independence of the Supreme Court in India

The Supreme Court of India plays a crucial role in the country's democratic system. It acts as the highest court in the nation, makes important decisions on legal matters, protects the fundamental rights of the people, and ensures that the Constitution is upheld. Because of its vital functions, it is essential that the Supreme Court remains independent and free from outside influences, especially from the government (executive) and the Parliament (legislature). This independence allows the Court to deliver justice impartially and without any pressure.

To protect the independence of the Supreme Court, the Indian Constitution has established various provisions:

1. Appointment of Judges: Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President of India, but this process involves consultation with members of the judiciary, including current judges of both the Supreme Court and High Courts. This means that the executive (the President and the cabinet) cannot simply appoint judges based on political reasons. This system helps ensure that judicial appointments are made on merit rather than political favoritism.

2. Security of Tenure: The Constitution provides judges with security in their positions. A Supreme Court judge can only be removed through a process called impeachment, which requires specific grounds to be established. Importantly, no judge has ever been impeached since the Supreme Court was established, which illustrates the strength of this provision.

3. Fixed Service Conditions: The salaries, allowances, and benefits of Supreme Court judges are set by the Parliament. Once appointed, judges cannot have their salaries or benefits reduced unless there is a financial emergency. This stipulation helps to provide stability and security for judges throughout their time in office.

4. Expenses Charged on the Consolidated Fund: The financial matters concerning judges, including their salaries and administrative expenses, are covered by the Consolidated Fund of India. This means that these funds cannot be subjected to a vote in Parliament, giving judges financial independence from political pressures, although discussions about these matters can still occur.

5. Protection from Criticism: The Constitution prohibits discussions in Parliament or State Legislatures about the conduct of Supreme Court judges while they are performing their duties—except when there is a motion for impeachment. This protection allows judges to work without fear of political backlash or public criticism.

6. Ban on Practice After Retirement: Once judges retire, they are not allowed to practice law or represent anyone in front of any court or authority in India. This rule is in place to prevent any conflicts of interest or perceived favoritism in their judgments while they served on the bench.

7. Power to Punish for Contempt: The Supreme Court has the authority to punish anyone who shows contempt towards it. This means that the Court can take action against any individual or entity that disrespects or undermines its authority. This power helps maintain the Court’s dignity and the seriousness of its decisions.

8. Appointment of Staff: The Chief Justice of India has the authority to appoint officers and support staff for the Supreme Court without interference from the government. This allows for the smooth functioning of the Court and ensures that it operates independently.

9. Jurisdiction and Powers: The Parliament cannot limit or diminish the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court. The Constitution guarantees the Court various powers to carry out its functions. However, Parliament does have the authority to expand these powers if needed.

These provisions in the Constitution ensure that the Supreme Court remains independent and can carry out its functions effectively. This independence is vital for upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of the citizens of India. Key articles related to these provisions include Article 124, which pertains to the establishment of the Supreme Court, and Article 217, which discusses the appointment and conditions of service for High Court judges, indirectly impacting the Supreme Court as well.

The independence of the Supreme Court is a cornerstone of democracy in India, and these provisions help build a strong judiciary that can serve justice fairly for all citizens.

Jurisdiction and Powers of the Supreme Court of India

The Constitution of India has given the Supreme Court a wide range of powers and responsibilities. Unlike the American Supreme Court, which primarily functions as a Federal Court, the Indian Supreme Court also serves as a final court of appeal, similar to the British House of Lords. The Supreme Court plays a crucial role as the final interpreter of the Constitution and is tasked with protecting the fundamental rights of Indian citizens. The Supreme Court has advisory and supervisory powers, which makes it a unique institution in the legal landscape. As Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar, a member of the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly, pointed out, “The Supreme Court of India has more powers than any other Supreme Court in any part of the world.”

The powers and jurisdictions of the Supreme Court can be grouped into several categories:

Original Jurisdiction: This type of jurisdiction allows the Supreme Court to hear certain types of cases directly without them going through lower courts first. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over disputes between different states and cases involving the enforcement of fundamental rights, as outlined in Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. This means that if a citizen feels that their fundamental rights have been violated, they can approach the Supreme Court directly.

Writ Jurisdiction: Under Article 32 and Article 226, the Supreme Court has the authority to issue writs. These writs are legal orders that help protect the rights of individuals and ensure that justice is served. The kinds of writs the Supreme Court can issue include habeas corpus (to release someone unlawfully detained), mandamus (to compel an authority to perform a duty), prohibition (to prevent a lower court from acting beyond its jurisdiction), certiorari (to review a decision made by a lower court), and quowarranto (to question the authority of a person holding a public office).

Appellate Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court also has the power to hear appeals against judgments from lower courts. Under Article 133, it can hear appeals in civil cases, and under Article 134, it can consider appeals in criminal cases. This ensures that decisions made by lower courts can be reviewed and upheld or overturned based on the principles of justice.

Advisory Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court can provide legal advice to the President of India under Article 143. This is a unique function that allows the government to seek the Court's opinion on important legal matters or questions of law. When the government faces a complex legal issue, it can turn to the Supreme Court for guidance.

Court of Record: The Supreme Court is also a "court of record," which means that all of its proceedings and decisions are officially documented. This status underlines the importance of its judgments, making them binding on lower courts.

Power of Judicial Review: One of the most significant powers of the Supreme Court is its ability to review the constitutionality of laws passed by the Parliament and the actions taken by the executive. This power is derived from Article 13 of the Constitution, which ensures that any law that contravenes the fundamental rights will be declared void. This acts as a check on the arbitrary use of power by the government.

Constitutional Interpretation: The Supreme Court is regarded as the ultimate interpreter of the Indian Constitution. It determines the meaning and application of constitutional provisions, thus guiding the functioning of the legislature and the executive. This vital role helps maintain the rule of law and protect citizens' rights.

Other Powers: The Supreme Court has additional responsibilities and powers, including the ability to enforce its own orders, oversee legal matters of public interest through Public Interest Litigations (PILs), and address matters of national importance.

In summary, the Supreme Court of India holds a significant position within the constitutional framework. Its expansive jurisdiction and various powers ensure that it plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law, protecting citizen rights, and maintaining the balance of power among the different branches of government. Understanding the powers and functions of the Supreme Court is vital to comprehending how justice is administered in India.

Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India plays a crucial role in resolving conflicts between different levels of the Indian government. Specifically, it deals with important disputes that arise within the federal structure of the country. This means that the Supreme Court can settle disagreements in three main scenarios: between the central government (known as the Centre) and one or more states; between the Centre and a state or states on one side and one or more otras states on the other side; or directly between two or more states.

The term "exclusive original jurisdiction" denotes that these kinds of disputes can only be addressed by the Supreme Court. No other court in India has the authority to hear these cases. "Original" indicates that the Supreme Court has the power to hear these disputes first, meaning they cannot be taken to this court after being tried in lower courts.

When disputes fall under the Supreme Court's exclusive original jurisdiction, there are two crucial points to understand. First, the conflict must involve legal issues that affect the existence or extent of a legal right. This means that issues of a political nature—like disagreements over political decisions—are not covered under this jurisdiction. Second, individuals cannot bring lawsuits against the Centre or states for personal matters under this specific jurisdiction; it is strictly reserved for government-level disputes.

However, there are certain limitations to the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. For example, disputes arising from treaties and agreements made before the Constitution came into effect are excluded, as outlined in Article 131 of the Indian Constitution. Additionally, disputes regarding interstate river water, matters referred to the Finance Commission, and settlements concerning pensions and expenses between the Centre and the states are also outside this jurisdiction.

The first significant case that utilized this original jurisdiction occurred in 1961, when the West Bengal government brought a suit against the Centre. This case challenged the constitutional validity of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, passed by the Parliament. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed this lawsuit, affirming the Act's validity and reinforcing its authority in handling such disputes.

In India, the framework for understanding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, including its powers and limitations, can be found mainly in Article 131 of the Constitution. This article specifies the kind of disputes the Supreme Court can adjudicate as well as the limitations placed upon this jurisdiction. Understanding these elements is critical for grasping how India's legal system functions, especially in relation to the federal structure and the balance of power between different levels of government.

Writ Jurisdiction in India

The Constitution of India establishes the Supreme Court as a key protector of citizens' fundamental rights. This means that if someone's basic rights are violated, they can seek help from the Supreme Court. One of the ways the Supreme Court assists citizens is by issuing writs. These are legal orders that can be used in various situations. There are several types of writs, including:

• Habeas Corpus: This writ is used to free someone who has been unlawfully detained. It asks the authorities to produce the detained person and justify their detention.

• Mandamus: This writ orders a person or authority to perform a public or statutory duty that they are obliged to perform.

• Prohibition: This order stops a lower court or a body from acting beyond its powers.

• Quo Warranto: This writ challenges a person’s right to hold a public office. It asks by what authority they hold that position.

• Certiorari: This order transfers a case from a lower court to a higher court for review.

The Supreme Court has what is known as "original jurisdiction" when it comes to cases involving the enforcement of fundamental rights. This means that a person whose rights have been infringed can go directly to the Supreme Court without having to go through lower courts first. They don't need to appeal to the Supreme Court; they can approach it directly.

However, it's important to note that the Supreme Court is not the only court that has the power to issue writs. High Courts in India also have this power. This allows citizens to approach either the Supreme Court or a High Court if they believe their fundamental rights have been violated. Therefore, in matters of fundamental rights, both the Supreme Court and High Courts can act, making their powers concurrent in this respect.

The situation is different when it comes to disputes between the Center and the States, where the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction. In these cases, only the Supreme Court can hear and decide on such matters.

When it comes to the variety of writs, there is a distinction between the powers of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The Supreme Court can only issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights. In contrast, the High Courts can issue writs not only for enforcing fundamental rights but also for other legal matters. This means that the High Court's writ jurisdiction is broader compared to that of the Supreme Court.

It's also worth mentioning that the Parliament of India has the authority to give the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for other purposes beyond fundamental rights. This means that while the Supreme Court has limitations on the types of writs it can issue, it can expand its role as needed with legislative action.

Like other matters of law, the articles of the Indian Constitution that govern writ jurisdiction include Article 32 and Article 226. Article 32 allows individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights. Article 226 grants High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of rights and for any other purpose.

In summary, the writ jurisdiction in India plays a crucial role in protecting the rights of citizens, and it is a robust mechanism provided by the Constitution to seek justice when fundamental rights are at stake.

Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India stands as the highest court of appeal in the country, having taken over responsibilities from the Federal Court of India and replaced the British Privy Council. One of its main roles is to hear appeals from the judgments made by the High Courts. The Supreme Court has a broad range of powers when it comes to hearing these appeals, which can be divided into four main categories: constitutional matters, civil matters, criminal matters, and appeals by special leave.

Constitutional Matters

In cases involving constitutional issues, an individual can appeal to the Supreme Court if the High Court confirms that the case includes an important question of law that needs interpretation of the Constitution. This means that if the High Court believes that a significant legal question is at stake, they can issue a certificate that allows the party involved to present their case to the Supreme Court. The appeal can be based on the argument that the High Court’s decision was wrong regarding this important question of law. Relevant articles from the Constitution that govern these appeals include Article 132, which deals with appeals in constitutional matters.

Civil Matters

When it comes to civil cases, an appeal can be made to the Supreme Court from any judgment issued by the High Court, provided that the High Court certifies two things: first, that the case involves a significant question of law affecting the public at large; and second, that this question needs to be resolved by the Supreme Court. Initially, only civil cases involving a dispute amounting to ₹20,000 or more could reach the Supreme Court. However, this limit was removed by the 30th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1972, allowing for a broader range of civil matters to be appealed (as detailed in Article 133).

Criminal Matters

In the realm of criminal law, the Supreme Court can hear appeals against judgments from High Courts if certain conditions are met. Specifically, an appeal can be made if the High Court has reversed an acquittal and sentenced the accused to death, or if it has convicted the accused from a lower court and also imposed a death sentence. In these cases, individuals have the right to appeal without needing a certificate from the High Court, as it is considered a matter of right. Additionally, if the High Court has reversed a conviction and acquitted the accused, there is no provision for an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction was expanded by Parliament in 1970, allowing for appeals if the High Court has imposed significant prison sentences as well (reflected in Article 134).

Appeal by Special Leave

The Supreme Court also has the authority to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment made by any court or tribunal in India (with exceptions being military tribunals and court-martials). This power is the court’s discretion and cannot be claimed as a right by any party. The special leave can be granted for judgments that are either final (conclusive) or interlocutory (temporary or interim decisions). This wide-ranging discretionary power means appeals can be related to various issues, including constitutional, civil, criminal, labor, and taxation matters. The Supreme Court emphasizes that this power should be used cautiously and only in exceptional cases, as highlighted in the Indian Constitution through Article 136.

In summary, the Supreme Court of India plays a vital role in the judicial system by exercising its appellate jurisdiction across various matters—constitutional, civil, and criminal. The power to grant special leave for appeals further enhances its ability to address justice on a broader scale, reflecting its importance as the apex judicial authority in the country.

Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as per Article 143 of the Indian Constitution

Article 143 of the Indian Constitution gives the President of India the power to request the Supreme Court to provide advice on certain matters. This process is known as the advisory jurisdiction. There are mainly two types of issues for which the President can seek the Supreme Court's advice.

The first category consists of questions of law or fact that are of public importance. This could be something that has already happened or something that is expected to come up in the future. The Supreme Court has the option to either give its advice or refuse to do so when asked on such matters.

The second category is about disputes related to agreements or treaties that were made before the Constitution came into effect. These disputes are typically excluded from the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. In such cases, the Supreme Court is obliged to provide its opinion to the President.

It is important to note that the opinions given by the Supreme Court in this advisory jurisdiction are not binding. This means that even though the President can consider the advice, he or she is not required to follow it. Therefore, the President has the freedom to make decisions based on their own judgment. The purpose of this advisory process is to help the government get an informed legal perspective on issues that need to be resolved.

Over the years, the President of India has referred various important matters to the Supreme Court under its advisory jurisdiction. Some of these include:

1. The Delhi Laws Act in 1951, where legal questions regarding Delhi’s governance were discussed.
2. The Kerala Education Bill in 1958, which examined state regulations on education.
3. The Berubari Union case in 1960, discussing the boundary between India and Pakistan.
4. The Sea Customs Act in 1963, which concerned customs regulations in India.
5. Keshav Singh’s case in 1964, related to the privileges of the Legislature.
6. The Presidential Election of 1974, focusing on issues surrounding the election process.
7. The Special Courts Bill in 1978, which looked at the legality of special courts for certain cases.
8. Jammu and Kashmir Resettlement Act in 1982, about returning displaced persons to Jammu and Kashmir.
9. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal in 1992, which dealt with water-sharing issues between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
10. The Rama Janma Bhumi case in 1993, significant regarding the Ayodhya dispute.
11. The consultation process for appointing the Chief Justice of India in 1998.
12. Legitimacy of the Center and States on issues regarding natural gas and liquefied natural gas in 2001.
13. The constitutional validity of the Election Commission’s decision to defer the Gujarat Assembly Elections in 2002.
14. The Punjab Termination of Agreements Act in 2004, which involved termination of certain agreements.
15. The 2G spectrum case verdict and the mandatory auctioning of natural resources in sectors like telecommunications in 2012.

In summary, the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 143 serves as an important mechanism for the President to seek clarity on substantial legal questions. While the advice given is not mandatory, it plays a crucial role in shaping government policy and decision-making. Understanding this process is vital for grasping the relationship between the executive and the judiciary in India, and how constitutional provisions influence governance and law interpretation.

The Supreme Court as a Court of Record

The Supreme Court of India is known as a "Court of Record," which means it has a special role and certain powers. There are two main aspects of these powers. Firstly, all the decisions, rules, and actions taken by the Supreme Court are officially recorded. These records serve as important references that are valued in the legal system. When these records are presented in other courts, they cannot be disputed or questioned. This helps maintain consistency in the law, as they are viewed as legal precedents that guide future cases.

Secondly, as a Court of Record, the Supreme Court has the authority to punish anyone who shows contempt towards it. In a significant ruling in 1991, the Supreme Court clarified that it also has the power to punish contempt against high courts, lower courts, and various tribunals across the country. This means if someone disrespects or acts against the authority of these courts, they can face serious consequences.

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

The Indian Government took steps in 1961 to review the laws surrounding contempt of court. A special committee led by H.N. Sanyal, who was the Additional Solicitor General of India, was formed for this purpose. The committee submitted its report in 1963, which laid the foundation for the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, enacted by the Parliament.

Under this act, contempt of court is classified into two categories: civil contempt and criminal contempt. Civil contempt refers to willful disobedience to a court’s judgment, order, writ, or any other legal directive. It can also include breaking a promise made to the court. On the other hand, criminal contempt involves actions that can harm the court’s reputation or interfere with the justice process. This includes:

1. Acts that discredit or lower the authority of a court.
2. Actions that may disrupt ongoing judicial proceedings.
3. Any other activities that obstruct the administration of justice.

However, it’s important to note that simply sharing information or critiquing judicial activities in a fair and accurate way does not count as contempt.

Punishments for Contempt of Court

According to the Contempt of Courts Act, the punishment for contempt can be serious. Offenders can face simple imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to ₹2,000, or both. Moreover, the law protects individuals from being charged with contempt after one year has passed since the alleged act was committed.

One more important point is that this Act does not apply to contempt actions related to Nyaya Panchayats or other village courts that were established for local justice.

Legal Articles Related to Contempt of Court

Various provisions of the Indian Constitution support the framework for contempt. For example, Article 129 states that the Supreme Court shall be a court of record. Article 142 grants it the power to make any order it deems necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter before it. These articles ensure that the Supreme Court has the authority to enforce its orders and maintain the dignity and respect of the judiciary in India.

In summary, the status of the Supreme Court as a Court of Record reinforces its importance in the Indian legal system. With the establishment of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, clear guidelines have been set to address issues of contempt while balancing the rights of individuals to express opinions. This intricate relationship helps safeguard the integrity of the judicial process in India.

Power of Judicial Review in India

Judicial review is an important authority held by the Supreme Court of India. It allows the court to check whether laws made by the government, whether at the national (Central) or state level, are in accordance with the Constitution of India. This means the Supreme Court has the right to look at any law or executive order and determine if it follows the principles and rules laid out in the Constitution.

When the Supreme Court reviews a law, it can decide that the law is unconstitutional if it doesn't conform to the Constitution’s guidelines. This means that if a law is found to violate the Constitution, it can be declared as "ultra vires," which is a Latin term meaning "beyond the powers." In simpler terms, this means the law exceeds what the government is allowed to do under the Constitution.

Once a law is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, it is treated as invalid or null and void. This means that the government cannot enforce it, and it will be as though the law never existed. This power of judicial review acts as a system of checks and balances within the Indian government. It ensures that neither the legislative body (which makes the laws) nor the executive branch (which implements the laws) can exceed their authority or act against the Constitution.

The foundation of this power can be found in various articles of the Indian Constitution, specifically Article 13. Article 13 states that any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution shall be void. It also emphasizes that any constitutional amendments that violate fundamental rights will also be subject to review. This establishes a strong link between judicial review and the protection of individual rights.

Additionally, Articles 32 and 226 grant the right to individuals to approach the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, if they believe that a law or action of the government violates their fundamental rights. This access to the courts is essential for maintaining democracy, as it provides citizens with a means to challenge unfair laws.

Through the power of judicial review, the Supreme Court not only protects the Constitution and the rights of citizens but also upholds the rule of law in the country. It serves to remind the government that it is accountable and must operate within the framework set out by the Constitution. Thus, judicial review is a cornerstone of Indian democracy, ensuring that the government is responsible and that individual rights are safeguarded.

In conclusion, the power of judicial review is crucial because it reinforces the principles of justice and equality in India. By allowing the highest court to invalidate laws that do not comply with the Constitution, the legal system thus maintains balance and protects the values that the Constitution embodies.

Review Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has a special responsibility known as "review jurisdiction." This means that the Supreme Court can look back at its own past decisions, including judgments and orders, and decide if they should be changed or upheld. If a person or party disagrees with a judgment, they can file a review petition, which is a request for the court to reconsider its previous decision.

To file a review petition, certain steps must be followed. First, the petition must be submitted within thirty days from the date of the judgment or order that someone wants to challenge. It is also important that this petition is presented to the same judge or group of judges (known as a "bench") that made the original decision.

There are specific reasons for which a review petition can be accepted by the court. These include:

1. Discovery of New Evidence: If someone finds new and important information that was not available when the original judgment was made.
2. Mistake or Error: If there is a clear mistake or error in the judgment that can be seen just by looking at the record.
3. Other Sufficient Reasons: Any other strong reason which justifies the need for the court to re-examine its decision.

When a review petition is filed, the Supreme Court has two options. It can either dismiss the petition (meaning the original decision stands), or it can send a notice to the other party involved in the case to hear their side before making a decision on the review.

Even if the review petition is dismissed, there is a possibility for further reconsideration through something called a "curative petition." This can be done under limited situations, such as:

1. Violation of Natural Justice: If the due process of law was not followed, affecting the fairness of the judgment.
2. Gross Miscarriage of Justice: If the decision made by the court was fundamentally unfair or wrong.
3. Abuse of the Court Process: If the way the court was used was improper.
4. Bias of the Judge: If there were any signs that the judge was biased or unfair in their judgment.

The power of review is an important part of the judicial system in India, helping ensure justice and correcting mistakes when necessary. This authority is rooted in Article 137 of the Indian Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court the ability to review its own judgments, provided the decision is not made in earlier cases under Article 32 or specific laws regarding certain matters.

Understanding this process is crucial for everyone involved in legal matters, as the Review Jurisdiction represents a safeguard essential for maintaining fairness and justice in the legal system.

Constitutional Interpretation in India

The Supreme Court of India plays a crucial role in interpreting the Constitution. It is considered the highest authority on constitutional matters, meaning its decisions are final and binding. This power allows the Court to determine not only the meaning of specific words and phrases but also the underlying principles and intentions behind the Constitution.

When the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, it follows various doctrines that guide its decisions. These doctrines help to clarify how laws should be applied and understood in different situations. Here are some of the important doctrines used in constitutional interpretation:

The Doctrine of Severability states that if a part of a law is found to be unconstitutional, the rest of the law can still stand if it can function independently. This means that only the offending portions are removed, allowing the valid parts to remain in effect.

The Doctrine of Waiver allows individuals to voluntarily give up a right or claim. However, this must be done with full understanding. For example, if someone knowingly chooses not to exercise a constitutional right, that choice can limit their ability to claim that right later.

The Doctrine of Eclipse explains that if a law becomes unconstitutional due to a change in the Constitution, it does not vanish. Instead, the law is suspended ("eclipsed") and can be revived if the constitutional provisions change again to allow it.

The Doctrine of Territorial Nexus deals with the jurisdiction of laws. It means that laws can only apply to a specific territory, so for a law to be valid, there must be a connection between the law and the area it governs.

The Doctrine of Pith and Substance helps determine the true essence of a law. It looks at the main objective of the law rather than its wording to see if it falls under a specific list of legislative powers.

The Doctrine of Colourable Legislation occurs when a legislative body attempts to create a law that appears to be within its jurisdiction but goes beyond its powers. It prevents lawmakers from disguising unconstitutional actions as valid laws.

The Doctrine of Implied Powers asserts that certain powers are not explicitly stated in the Constitution but are assumed to be necessary for the execution of stated powers. This allows the government to function effectively even when specific powers are not spelled out.

The Doctrine of Incidental and Ancillary Powers relates to powers that are not directly outlined in a legislation but can be exercised to achieve the objectives of the main law. Essentially, it supports the idea that legislating bodies can create related rules as long as they pertain to the main subject.

The Doctrine of Precedent explains that previous court judgments must be followed in similar future cases. This applies the principle of consistency in law, ensuring similar issues are treated similarly over time.

The Doctrine of Occupied Field comes into play when two legislative bodies overlap in their jurisdiction. If one body has already made laws on a subject, the other body cannot legislate on the same matter as that field is considered "occupied."

The Doctrine of Prospective Overruling allows courts to decide that a judgment is only applicable moving forward and not retroactively. This means it doesn't affect actions or decisions that were made before the ruling.

The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction encourages courts to interpret laws in a way that allows for compatibility among different laws or sections of the Constitution. It seeks to avoid contradictions within the legal framework.

Lastly, the Doctrine of Liberal Interpretation promotes an interpretation of laws that prioritize fairness and reasonableness. This doctrine emphasizes understanding the spirit of the law rather than getting stuck on its technicalities.

These doctrines are crucial because they help the Supreme Court uphold the Constitution’s principles and ensure justice in various cases. The Supreme Court’s interpretations often reference specific articles from the Constitution, like Article 13, which deals with laws that are inconsistent with fundamental rights, and Article 32, which grants individuals the right to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of those rights.

Through these methods, the Supreme Court ensures that the Constitution remains a living document that adapts to the changing needs of society while safeguarding fundamental rights and values. This approach to constitutional interpretation solidifies the rule of law in India and protects the rights of its citizens.

The Supreme Court of India, which is the highest court in the country, has many important powers beyond just interpreting laws. Understanding these powers can help us see how the judiciary works alongside the executive and legislative branches of the government.

One significant role of the Supreme Court is to handle disputes related to elections for the President and Vice-President of India. According to Article 71 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court has the exclusive right to decide any election-related disputes concerning these high offices. Since this power is original and final, its decisions are absolute and cannot be challenged elsewhere.

The Supreme Court also plays a crucial role in ensuring good governance within various public service commissions, namely the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), State Public Service Commissions (SPSC), and Jharkhand State Public Service Commission (JSPSC). Under Article 317 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court can inquire into the conduct of the chairmen and members of these commissions. If it finds any member guilty of misconduct, it can recommend their removal to the President of India, and the President must follow this advice.

Moreover, the Supreme Court possesses the power to manage cases that are pending in the High Courts across the country. It can withdraw these cases and decide on them directly. Additionally, it has the authority to transfer cases or appeals from one High Court to another, ensuring that justice is administered efficiently and fairly throughout the nation.

The law established by the Supreme Court is considered binding on all other courts in India. According to Article 141 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court's decisions must be followed by all courts, making its orders enforceable nationwide. This means that all civil and judicial authorities are required to support the Supreme Court in executing its orders.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court maintains oversight over all courts and tribunals operating within the country's territory. This supervisory power is essential for maintaining consistency in the application of laws and safeguarding the rights of individuals.

Parliament has the authority to enhance the Supreme Court's jurisdiction concerning matters listed in the Union List, which is a set of subjects on which only the central government can legislate. Additionally, the Court’s jurisdiction can also be expanded through special agreements between the central government and the states. This flexibility is important for adapting to the changing needs of the society and ensuring that justice is accessible to all citizens.

The intricate powers held by the Supreme Court illustrate its essential role in upholding the Constitution, maintaining the rule of law, and protecting the rights of individuals. Understanding these functions provides insight into how India's legal system operates and the checks and balances in place to prevent misuse of power by any branch of government.

Supreme Court of India vs. Supreme Court of the USA

The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in both India and the United States. However, there are differences in their powers and functions, particularly in terms of jurisdiction and authority.

Judicial Review in India

In India, the Constitution is considered the highest law of the land. This means that all laws made by the Parliament must align with the Constitution in order to be valid. The Supreme Court of India has a significant role in this process through what is known as judicial review. Judicial review refers to the power of courts to evaluate if a law or action by the government complies with the Constitution. If a law is found to be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has the authority to strike it down.

The significance of judicial review is highlighted in several notable observations made by the Supreme Court:

1. Supremacy of the Constitution: The Constitution sets the boundaries within which all branches of the government—executive, legislative, and judiciary—must operate. No one, no matter how powerful, can claim to have the ultimate authority to define their own powers outside of what the Constitution stipulates.

2. Role of Judges: Judges have the critical task of determining the validity of laws. If they are unable to do this, it would render Fundamental Rights meaningless since rights that cannot be enforced are essentially ineffective. The Supreme Court serves as a guardian of these rights, ensuring they are respected and upheld.

3. Upholding the Balance of Power: The Constitution is designed to maintain a balance of power among government branches. The Supreme Court is responsible for ensuring that neither the legislature nor the executive exceeds their constitutional limits. This is crucial for protecting citizens' rights and freedoms.

4. Founding Fathers' Intent: The framers of the Indian Constitution wisely included provisions for judicial review to ensure a balanced federal structure. This framework not only protects Fundamental Rights but also helps promote equality, liberty, and healthy nationalism. Judicial review allows the Constitution to adapt to new challenges and societal needs.

Constitutional Basis

In the Indian Constitution, judicial review is supported by a number of articles. Article 13 states that any law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is void. Similarly, Article 32 gives individuals the right to approach the Supreme Court if they feel their rights have been violated, providing a mechanism for redress. Moreover, Article 226 allows High Courts to issue certain writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

The Supreme Court's role in judicial review thus ensures that the Constitution remains a living document, capable of protecting the rights and freedoms of its citizens in the face of changing circumstances. Through its decisions, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, maintains the balance of power, and safeguards democratic values in India.

In comparison, the Supreme Court of the United States also conducts judicial review. It determines whether laws passed by Congress or actions taken by the President conform to the Constitution. However, the scope, process, and the impact of judicial review may differ between the two countries based on their unique legal systems and historical contexts.

Overall, the judicial review power of the Supreme Court is a cornerstone of the Indian legal system, ensuring that the Constitution remains the apex law governing the land while protecting the rights of its people.

Constitutional Provisions for Judicial Review in India

Judicial review is an important function of the judiciary, which allows courts to review and determine the legality of any law or action taken by the government or its officials. While the term "Judicial Review" itself does not appear in the Indian Constitution, various articles within it empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to conduct judicial reviews. Here’s a breakdown of the relevant constitutional provisions.

Article 13 is crucial as it states that any law that contradicts or violates the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution is considered null and void. This means that the courts can review laws to ensure they do not infringe upon the basic rights of citizens.

Article 32 provides individuals with the right to approach the Supreme Court directly to enforce their Fundamental Rights. This article gives the Supreme Court the authority to issue orders, directions, or writs to safeguard these rights and ensure justice.

Moving on to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Article 131 gives it the power to resolve disputes between the central government and the states or between different states. This is known as its original jurisdiction because these cases are brought directly to the Supreme Court.

In addition to original jurisdiction, the Supreme Court also has appellate jurisdiction, which allows it to hear appeals from lower courts. Article 132 focuses on constitutional cases, while Article 133 pertains to civil cases, and Article 134 applies to criminal cases. These articles ensure that important legal matters can be reviewed at the highest level of the judiciary.

Article 134-A specifically deals with the procedure for obtaining a certificate for appeal from High Courts to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, Article 135 grants the Supreme Court the authority to exercise the powers that were held by the Federal Court under any law that existed before the Constitution was enacted.

Article 136 allows the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any court or tribunal, except for military courts or tribunals. This power is significant as it enables the Supreme Court to intervene in cases that may require its attention for justice to be served.

Article 143 permits the President of India to request the opinion of the Supreme Court on legal questions or matters that occurred before the Constitution came into effect. This provision helps clarify laws that may affect the functioning of the government and the rights of individuals.

At the level of High Courts, Article 226 empowers these courts to issue directions or orders to enforce Fundamental Rights. This is important for the protection of citizens’ rights at the state level, making the judiciary accessible to the general public.

Article 227 gives High Courts supervisory authority over all courts and tribunals within their jurisdictions, except military courts. This means High Courts can oversee the functioning of lower courts to ensure judicial propriety and adherence to the law.

The scope of legislation is defined in Article 245, which dictates the territorial reach of laws enacted by Parliament and state legislatures. Article 246 specifies the subjects on which laws can be made by Parliament and state legislatures. The Indian Constitution divides these subjects into three lists: the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List.

In cases of conflicting laws, Articles 251 and 254 clarify that if a central law and a state law contradict each other, the central law will take precedence, and the state law will become void. This ensures uniformity of laws across the nation.

Finally, Article 372 deals with pre-constitution laws, stipulating that these laws continue to be in effect until they are amended or repealed by the Parliament.

In summary, the provisions regarding judicial review in the Indian Constitution empower both the Supreme Court and High Courts to protect Fundamental Rights and ensure justice by reviewing laws and actions of the government. This framework is essential in maintaining the rule of law and the rights of citizens in India.

Scope of Judicial Review in India

In India, people can challenge the legality of laws passed by the government or orders issued by executive bodies in the Supreme Court or High Courts. There are three main reasons for doing this:

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights: If a law or order violates the Fundamental Rights outlined in Part III of the Indian Constitution, it can be challenged. The Fundamental Rights guarantee basic freedoms and rights to individuals, such as the right to equality, freedom of speech, and protection against discrimination.

2. Lack of Authority: A law can also be contested if it was created by an authority that did not have the power to do so. Each authority has specific roles and responsibilities, and if they overstep their limits, their actions may be deemed invalid.

3. Contradiction to the Constitution: If a law or order is in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution, it can be declared invalid. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all laws must align with it.

While India has the power of judicial review, it is more limited compared to how it operates in the United States. The U.S. Constitution does not specifically mention judicial review, but it allows the Supreme Court to function under the “due process of law.” This principle gives the U.S. Supreme Court broader authority to protect citizens' rights, allowing it to take action not only when a law violates rights but also if it is deemed unreasonable in its procedures.

In contrast, the Indian Constitution follows the concept of "procedure established by law". This means that when the Supreme Court reviews a law, it primarily looks at whether the law was passed by a competent authority and whether it adheres to constitutional provisions. It doesn’t typically consider whether the law is reasonable or practical; this is a significant difference from the U.S. approach.

The American Supreme Court has been described by critics as a “third chamber” of the Legislature, with the ability to influence social policy extensively. While there is a recognition of the judiciary's role in upholding the Constitution in India, this power is more restrained. Indian parliamentary sovereignty is not absolute either; the Constitution places limitations on it. For example, the Indian Constitution is a written document, and it includes Federalism, which divides powers between the central and state governments—this is a key aspect of governance.

Additionally, the existence of Fundamental Rights and the practice of judicial review creates a framework where the powers of Parliament can be checked. Thus, Indian governance embodies a blend of the American legal principle of judicial supremacy and the British principle of parliamentary supremacy. This means that while Parliament has the right to make laws, those laws must still align with the Constitution, ensuring that the rights of individuals are protected.

In summary, the scope of judicial review in India serves as an essential mechanism to uphold democracy and protect citizens' rights while balancing the powers between legislative authority and judicial oversight. The relevant articles in the Indian Constitution concerning this are Article 13 (which deals with laws inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights) and Article 32 (which provides the right to constitutional remedies). Together, they establish the foundation for judicial review in India and emphasize the importance of safeguarding the constitutional framework.

Judicial Review of the Ninth Schedule

The Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution primarily contains laws that are protected from being challenged in court. This protection is provided under Article 31B, which was added to the Constitution through the first amendment in 1951. Initially, the Ninth Schedule included only 13 laws, but now it has grown to 282 laws. Most of these laws relate to issues like land reforms and the abolition of the zamindari system (a feudal land ownership system).

However, its blanket immunity from judicial scrutiny is not absolute. In the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati in 1973, the Supreme Court of India ruled that while laws in the Ninth Schedule may seem protected, they can still be challenged if they violate the "basic structure" of the Constitution. This concept of "basic structure" refers to the fundamental principles that uphold the Constitution, such as the rights of individuals and the distribution of power within the government.

In the Waman Rao case of 1980, the Supreme Court further clarified that any laws added to the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, would only be considered valid if they did not undermine this basic structure. Essentially, if a law infringes on fundamental rights—listed under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), 19 (Protection of Certain Rights), and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)—it could be challenged in court, regardless of its status in the Ninth Schedule.

Later, in the I.R. Coelho case of 2007, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the need for judicial review, emphasizing that placing a law in the Ninth Schedule does not grant it complete immunity from being questioned in terms of its constitutionality. The judgment reinforced that all laws that violate basic rights and do not adhere to the Constitution's basic structure can be legally challenged.

The Supreme Court provided several key insights in its rulings. For instance, it established that if a law takes away rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution, it may infringe on the basic structure or it may not. This means that the consequences of the law, rather than just its form or title, determine its validity. The Court emphasized using a "rights test" and an "essence of the right" test to evaluate laws. The "rights test" checks if the law directly infringes on fundamental rights, while the "essence of the right" test considers the core meaning and importance of those rights.

Furthermore, if a law that has already been upheld by the court is challenged again, it cannot be reviewed based on the principles outlined in the latest judgment. However, if a previously ruled law that violates fundamental rights is later placed in the Ninth Schedule, it can still be challenged for potentially damaging the Constitution’s basic structure.

Despite these reviews and challenges, the court confirmed that any actions or transactions completed under laws that were previously deemed valid will not be questioned or undone, ensuring a degree of legal stability.

In summary, while the Ninth Schedule offers a layer of protection for certain laws, significant limitations exist. Laws that infringe upon basic rights and do not adhere to the core principles of the Constitution can still be evaluated and challenged in court, reflecting the judiciary's role in safeguarding constitutional integrity. Understanding how these laws interact with various articles of the Constitution is essential for grasping the complexity of India's legal framework.