The Supreme Court of India: Apex Judicial Authority

When a citizen’s fundamental rights are violated and every door seems closed, one institution remains – the Supreme Court of India. When two states clash over river waters or the Union government and a state government reach a constitutional deadlock, there is still one forum with the authority and the legitimacy to resolve it. Established on 26 January 1950, the day India’s Constitution came into force, the Supreme Court sits at the very pinnacle of the country’s judicial structure. It is not merely the highest court of appeal – it is the guardian of the Constitution, the protector of fundamental rights, and the ultimate arbiter of the law.

Constitutional foundation of the Supreme Court 🔗

Articles 124 to 147 in Part V of the Constitution, under Chapter IV titled “The Union Judiciary,” lay down the entire framework for the Supreme Court – its establishment, composition, independence, jurisdiction, powers, and procedures. Article 124(1) specifically states that there shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India (CJI) and such other judges as Parliament by law prescribes. Originally, the Court had just eight judges – one Chief Justice and seven others. Today, following the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019, it has a sanctioned strength of 34 judges, including the Chief Justice.

The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within India under Article 141, making its pronouncements the supreme source of judicial authority in the country. No High Court or subordinate court can deviate from what the Supreme Court has declared as the law.

Composition and qualifications 🔗

To be appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court, a person must be a citizen of India and must have either been a judge of a High Court for at least five years, or an advocate of a High Court for at least ten years, or be a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President. Judges of the Supreme Court hold office until they attain the age of 65 years and can be removed only through an address by both Houses of Parliament on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity – a process so stringent that it has never been successfully completed in Indian history.

How judges are appointed: the collegium system 🔗

The appointment of Supreme Court judges is formally governed by Article 124(2), which states that every judge shall be appointed by the President after consultation with the CJI and other judges as the President deems necessary. However, the word “consultation” has been the subject of intense judicial interpretation over the decades.

The current system – known as the collegium system – did not exist in the original Constitution. It evolved through three landmark Supreme Court judgments, collectively called the Three Judges Cases. In the First Judges Case (1981), the Court held that “consultation” merely meant an exchange of views, giving the executive the upper hand. The Second Judges Case (1993) reversed this position entirely, redefining “consultation” to mean “concurrence.” The CJI’s recommendation for judicial appointments was declared binding on the President. The Third Judges Case (1998) further expanded the collegium to include the CJI and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, whose collective recommendation must be sent to the government.

Under this system, the Chief Justice of India initiates the recommendation process by consulting the collegium and the senior-most judge from the candidate’s parent High Court. The recommendation then travels to the Union Law Minister, then to the Prime Minister, and finally the President makes the formal appointment. Importantly, if the collegium reiterates a name that the government returns with objections, the government is bound to make the appointment.

In 2014, Parliament attempted to replace the collegium with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) through the 99th Constitutional Amendment. The NJAC would have included the CJI, two senior SC judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons. However, in 2015, a Constitution Bench struck it down as unconstitutional, holding that allowing executive participation in judicial appointments would undermine the independence of the judiciary – a basic feature of the Constitution that Parliament cannot alter.

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court 🔗

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is broadly divided into original, appellate, and advisory jurisdiction, along with several other special powers.

Original jurisdiction 🔗

Article 131 grants the Supreme Court exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear disputes between the Government of India and one or more states, or between two or more states themselves. “Original” means the case is filed directly before the Supreme Court, not as an appeal. “Exclusive” means only the Supreme Court – no other court – can hear such disputes. For a case to fall under this jurisdiction, it must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence of a legal right depends. Purely political questions are kept out.

It is important to note that a private citizen cannot directly sue the Union or a state under this provision. The jurisdiction is specifically reserved for disputes between constitutional units of the Indian federation.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 32 🔗

One of the most consequential powers of the Supreme Court is its writ jurisdiction under Article 32, which Dr. B.R. Ambedkar once called the “heart and soul” of the Constitution. Any citizen whose fundamental rights have been violated can approach the Supreme Court directly – bypassing all lower courts – and seek relief through five constitutional writs:

• Habeas corpus – to challenge unlawful detention.
• Mandamus – to compel a public authority to perform a duty.
• Prohibition – to stop a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction.
• Quo warranto – to challenge a person’s legal authority to hold a public office.
• Certiorari – to quash the order of a lower court or tribunal.

Unlike High Courts, which can issue writs for broader purposes, the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction is specifically for the enforcement of fundamental rights. However, this jurisdiction is not exclusive – High Courts can also issue writs under Article 226, and their scope is actually wider than that of the Supreme Court in this context.

Appellate jurisdiction 🔗

The Supreme Court is primarily a court of appeal, and its appellate jurisdiction covers constitutional, civil, and criminal matters. Under Articles 132 and 133, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from a High Court judgment if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, or, in civil cases, that the question is of general public importance. In criminal matters under Article 134, an appeal can be made where the High Court has reversed an acquittal and sentenced the accused to death or imprisonment for life.

Beyond these specific routes, Article 136 gives the Supreme Court a sweeping discretionary power: it can grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, order, or decree of any court or tribunal in India (except military courts). This is not a right but a discretionary power exercised sparingly – in cases involving substantial questions of law or grave injustice. It covers any subject matter: constitutional, civil, criminal, tax, labour, or any other.

Advisory jurisdiction 🔗

Under Article 143, the President of India may refer any question of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its opinion. This is the Court’s advisory jurisdiction. The President can seek such an opinion in two categories of matters: on any question of public importance that has arisen or is likely to arise, and on disputes arising from pre-Constitution treaties or agreements. Crucially, the Supreme Court may or may not give its opinion – it retains discretion. Even when it does give an opinion, it is technically advisory and not binding in the same way a judicial verdict would be. In practice, however, the President’s government generally follows it.

The Supreme Court as a court of record 🔗

Under Article 129, the Supreme Court is a court of record. This has two important implications. First, its judgments and proceedings are recorded for perpetual memory and have evidentiary value – they cannot be questioned or challenged before any court. Second, the Supreme Court has the power to punish for contempt of court, including contempt of itself. This power is a safeguard that ensures parties, lawyers, and even government authorities comply with its orders and do not undermine the dignity of the Court.

Power of judicial review 🔗

Among all the powers vested in the Supreme Court, the power of judicial review is arguably the most consequential for constitutional governance. Under Article 13, the Supreme Court can examine any legislative or executive action of the Central or state governments and strike it down if it is found to be ultra vires – inconsistent with the Constitution. This is not limited to ordinary laws. In the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court held that even constitutional amendments are subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution – a doctrine entirely of judicial creation.

This means Parliament’s power to amend is not absolute. The Supreme Court acts as the ultimate check against unconstitutional use of legislative power, making it a critical pillar of India’s system of separation of powers and checks and balances.

The Supreme Court in India’s federal structure 🔗

India follows a quasi-federal structure – a strong Centre with states that have significant powers of their own. In this setup, the Supreme Court plays a vital role as the federal court. When Centre-state or state-state disputes arise over legislative competence, financial arrangements, or governmental authority, the Supreme Court steps in as the neutral arbiter. Its exclusive original jurisdiction under Article 131 ensures that such disputes do not escalate into political or constitutional crises without judicial resolution.

Beyond resolving disputes, the Supreme Court also acts as the interpreter of the constitutional division of powers between the Union and the states. Its rulings on whether a law falls under the Union List, State List, or Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule have a direct bearing on the working of Indian federalism.

Complete justice under Article 142 🔗

One of the Supreme Court’s most remarkable powers is found in Article 142, which empowers it to pass any order or decree necessary to do “complete justice” in any matter before it. This is a plenary power – broad and residual – that allows the Court to go beyond the strict letter of the law when justice demands it. Courts have used this provision to direct settlement of environmental disputes, order the cleaning of rivers, facilitate adoption across religious lines, and more. It is a constitutional acknowledgement that procedural gaps should not stand in the way of substantive justice.

What do you think? Given that the collegium system keeps judicial appointments entirely within the judiciary, should there be a more transparent and structured process for selecting Supreme Court judges – and how can such a system be designed without compromising judicial independence? Also, with over four crore pending cases across Indian courts, does the Supreme Court’s broad special leave jurisdiction under Article 136 help deliver justice, or does it risk overburdening the apex court with matters that could have been resolved at lower levels?

References

1. https://www.sci.gov.in/jurisdiction/
2. https://www.clearias.com/union-judiciary-supreme-court/
3. https://www.nextias.com/blog/supreme-court/
4. https://www.drishtiias.com/important-institutions/drishti-specials-important-institutions-national-institutions/supreme-court-of-india
5. https://doj.gov.in/memorandum-of-procedure-of-appointment-of-supreme-court-judges/
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegium_system
7. https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/collegium-system-and-appointments/
8. https://pwonlyias.com/udaan/supreme-court-of-india/
9. https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/supreme-court-of-india/
10. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/important-institutions/supreme-court-of-india
11. https://www.lloydlawcollege.edu.in/blog/supreme-court-india.html
12. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/collegium-system/
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_India