Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court is the apex judicial body of India and the guardian of the Constitution. Established under Article 124, it is the highest court of appeal, the guarantor of Fundamental Rights (Art 32), and the final interpreter of the Constitution. Its decisions are binding on all courts in India under Art 141. The SC exercises original, appellate, advisory, and writ jurisdiction, and possesses the extraordinary power to do "complete justice" under Art 142.
Key Dates
Supreme Court inaugurated at the Chamber of Princes in Parliament House; replaced the Federal Court of India (established 1937 under GoI Act 1935) and the Privy Council as final appellate authority; H.J. Kania became the first Chief Justice of India
SC moved to its present building on Tilak Marg, New Delhi, designed by Chief Architect Ganesh Bhikaji Deolalikar with a 27.6-metre dome symbolizing justice
Golaknath v. State of Punjab — SC (6:5) held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights under Art 368; introduced prospective overruling doctrine; later overruled by Kesavananda
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala — 13-judge bench (7:6) introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine; the most important constitutional case in Indian history; decided 24 April 1973
During Emergency, SC in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (Habeas Corpus case, 1976) held by 4:1 that Art 21 is suspended during Emergency — Justice H.R. Khanna's lone dissent became a landmark; overruled by Puttaswamy (2017)
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India — SC read "due process of law" into Art 21; procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable; expanded the scope of right to life and personal liberty
Minerva Mills v. Union of India — SC struck down Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment; reinforced basic structure doctrine; declared harmony between FRs and DPSPs as basic structure
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (Second Judges Case) — SC established Collegium system; CJI's opinion has primacy in judicial appointments
Third Judges Case (In Re Presidential Reference) — expanded Collegium to CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges; laid down detailed consultation procedure
SC struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act and 99th Constitutional Amendment by 4:1 as violating basic structure (judicial independence)
SC strength increased from 31 to 34 judges (including CJI) by Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India — 9-judge bench unanimously declared Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right under Art 21; overruled ADM Jabalpur's ratio on Art 21 suspension during Emergency
Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India — SC struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme as violating Art 19(1)(a) right to information of voters; directed SBI to furnish all bond details to ECI
Supersession of judges: Justice A.N. Ray appointed CJI over 3 senior judges (Shelat, Grover, Hegde) — seen as executive retaliation after Kesavananda; Justices Shelat, Grover, and Hegde resigned in protest
Four senior SC judges (Chelameswar, Gogoi, Lokur, Kurian Joseph) held an unprecedented press conference on 12 January 2018, alleging "selective case assignment" by CJI and that "democracy was in peril"
Constitutional Position and Establishment
The Supreme Court of India is established under Article 124(1) of the Constitution as the apex court of the Indian judicial system. Articles 124 to 147 in Part V, Chapter IV deal with the organization, independence, jurisdiction, and powers of the Supreme Court. The SC is the final interpreter of the Constitution (Art 141), the guardian of Fundamental Rights (Art 32), and a court of record (Art 129). Unlike the US Supreme Court which was established by the US Constitution in a single line and left to Congress to define, the Indian Constitution contains detailed provisions on the SC's composition, jurisdiction, and independence. The seat of the SC is in Delhi, but the CJI can, with the approval of the President, appoint other places as seats of the SC (Art 130) — this power has never been exercised. The Federal Court of India (1937-1950), established under the Government of India Act 1935, was the predecessor. On 28 January 1950, the SC began functioning with 8 judges (CJI + 7). The original Constitution provided for a CJI and 7 other judges; this has been progressively increased by Parliament — to 10 in 1956, 13 in 1960, 17 in 1977, 25 in 1986, 30 in 2008, and 33 in 2019, making the current sanctioned strength 34 (CJI + 33). The SC has consistently maintained that its independence is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Composition, Qualifications, and Appointment
Article 124(1) provides that the SC consists of a CJI and such number of judges as Parliament may prescribe (currently 34 including CJI). Qualifications (Art 124(3)): a person must be (a) a citizen of India, and (b) must have been a judge of one or more High Courts for at least 5 years, or (c) an advocate of one or more High Courts for at least 10 years, or (d) a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President. No person has been appointed under the "distinguished jurist" category so far. Appointment: by the President "after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts as the President may deem necessary" (Art 124(2)). In practice, the Collegium system governs appointments. The Collegium evolved through three landmark cases: First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981) — held that the executive had primacy; Second Judges Case (1993) — reversed this and held that CJI's opinion has primacy, effectively giving the judiciary control; Third Judges Case (1998) — expanded the Collegium to CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges. The NJAC (99th Amendment + NJAC Act, 2014), which proposed a six-member commission (CJI, 2 senior SC judges, Law Minister, 2 eminent persons), was struck down in 2015 as violating the basic structure. The CJI is appointed by the convention of seniority (the senior-most judge of the SC is appointed CJI) — this convention was breached in 1973 (Justice A.N. Ray superseded three senior judges) and in 1977 (Justice M.H. Beg superseded Justice H.R. Khanna).
Tenure, Removal, and Conditions of Service
SC judges serve until the age of 65 years (Art 124(2)). A judge may resign by writing to the President (Art 124(2)(a)). Removal is only through the process of impeachment for "proved misbehaviour or incapacity" — this requires a motion signed by 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members, followed by investigation by a three-member committee (a SC judge, a HC Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist), and then adoption by a special majority in each House (majority of total membership AND 2/3 of members present and voting) (Art 124(4) read with Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968). No SC judge has ever been successfully impeached. The only impeachment attempt was against Justice V. Ramaswami (1993), where the motion was introduced in Lok Sabha but failed to secure the required special majority. The salaries, allowances, and conditions of service of SC judges are determined by Parliament and cannot be varied to a judge's disadvantage after appointment (Art 125). Salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India (Art 112(3)(d)) and are non-votable by Parliament — this is a key safeguard for judicial independence. As of 2024, the CJI's salary is Rs 2,80,000 per month, and other SC judges receive Rs 2,50,000 per month. SC judges are barred from practising in any court or before any authority in India after retirement (Art 124(7)).
Original Jurisdiction (Art 131)
Article 131 gives the SC exclusive original jurisdiction in disputes between: (a) the Government of India and one or more states, (b) the Government of India and one or more states on one side and one or more states on the other side, (c) two or more states. However, the dispute must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends — purely political disputes are excluded. The original jurisdiction under Art 131 does not extend to: (i) disputes arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad, or similar instrument entered into before the commencement of the Constitution (Art 131 proviso), (ii) inter-state water disputes covered under Art 262 (Parliament has specifically excluded SC jurisdiction through the Inter-State Water Disputes Act), (iii) disputes where a state merely represents the interests of its citizens. The SC in State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1978) held that Art 131 cannot be used to challenge the constitutionality of a central law — for that, Art 32 or Art 226 must be used. In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977), the SC clarified that disputes under Art 131 must involve questions of legal rights, not political questions. Despite its importance, Art 131 is relatively rarely invoked compared to Art 32.
Writ Jurisdiction (Art 32) and Fundamental Rights Enforcement
Article 32 empowers the SC to issue directions, orders, or writs (including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto) for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Crucially, Art 32 is itself a Fundamental Right — Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called it "the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it." This means the right to approach the SC for FR enforcement cannot be denied. The five writs are: (1) Habeas Corpus — to produce a person detained unlawfully before the court; (2) Mandamus — to command a public authority to perform a duty it has failed to perform; (3) Prohibition — to prohibit a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction; (4) Certiorari — to quash the order of a lower court or tribunal that has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction; (5) Quo Warranto — to challenge the legal authority by which a person holds a public office. Art 32 can be invoked only when a Fundamental Right is violated — not for enforcement of ordinary legal rights (for that, Art 226 must be used). The SC in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) affirmed that Art 32 is a guaranteed remedy. The right under Art 32 can be suspended during a National Emergency under Art 359, but the 44th Amendment ensures that Art 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even during Emergency. The SC has also used Art 32 creatively through PILs to enforce the directive principles indirectly by reading them into expanded interpretations of Art 21.
Appellate Jurisdiction (Art 132-136)
The SC has the widest appellate jurisdiction of any apex court in the world. (1) Constitutional matters (Art 132): appeal lies from any HC judgment if the HC certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution — both civil and criminal cases. (2) Civil matters (Art 133): appeal lies if the HC certifies the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance and the HC believes the question needs SC determination — applies to decrees or final orders. (3) Criminal matters (Art 134): appeal lies as of right if the HC (a) reverses an acquittal order and sentences the accused to death, (b) withdraws a case from a subordinate court to itself and convicts the accused and sentences him to death, or (c) certifies that the case is fit for appeal to the SC. (4) Appeals by special leave (Art 136) — the Special Leave Petition (SLP) is the most used appellate provision. The SC can, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order of any court or tribunal in India (except military tribunals). Art 136 is an extraordinary residuary power — it is not bound by any conditions regarding the nature of the case, the court, or the certification requirement. Through SLPs, the SC hears approximately 65,000-80,000 cases annually. The SC in Pritam Singh v. The State (1950) held that Art 136 does not confer a right of appeal but gives the SC discretion to interfere when there has been a gross miscarriage of justice.
Advisory Jurisdiction (Art 143)
Article 143 empowers the President to refer any question of law or fact of public importance to the SC for its opinion. Under Art 143(1), the President may refer a question of law or fact of "such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court" — the SC may give or decline to give its opinion. Under Art 143(2), the President can refer disputes arising out of pre-constitutional treaties, agreements, or engagements — here the SC is obliged to give its opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding on the President or the government — they are advisory in nature. However, they carry great persuasive value as they are opinions of the highest court and are typically followed. Notable advisory opinions: In Re Berubari Union (1960) — SC held that ceding Indian territory requires a constitutional amendment; In Re Kerala Education Bill (1958) — SC advised on the constitutionality of the Kerala Education Bill; In Re Special Courts Bill (1979); In Re Presidential Poll (1974); In Re Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1993). The Delhi Laws Act case (1951) was the first reference under Art 143. The SC declined to answer the advisory reference on the Ayodhya matter (In Re Ram Janmabhoomi, 1993), holding the question to be superfluous. The advisory jurisdiction ensures that constitutional doubts can be resolved without waiting for actual litigation.
Court of Record, Contempt Power, and Art 142
Article 129 declares the SC to be a court of record, which has two implications: (1) the records (judgments, proceedings, acts) of the SC are preserved as evidence and cannot be questioned in any court, and (2) it has the power to punish for contempt of itself (contempt of court power). The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines civil contempt (wilful disobedience of a court order) and criminal contempt (conduct that scandalizes or lowers the authority of the court). The SC has exercised this power sparingly but significantly — in Prashant Bhushan v. SC (2020), the SC held a lawyer guilty of criminal contempt for tweets criticizing the CJI. Article 142 gives the SC the power to pass any decree or order necessary for doing "complete justice" in any cause or matter pending before it. This is an extraordinary and sweeping power unique to the Indian SC. The SC has used Art 142 for: dissolving marriages where divorce was not available under personal laws (Moti Ram v. State of MP), directing Bhopal gas tragedy compensation, ordering the Union Carbide settlement, directing the implementation of Vishaka guidelines, and ordering the dissolution of marriages by mutual consent without the mandatory 6-month cooling period. In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the SC clarified that Art 142 cannot be used to override substantive law. Article 144 provides that all civil and judicial authorities shall act in aid of the SC.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
PIL is a judicial innovation that allows any public-spirited person to approach the SC (under Art 32) or HCs (under Art 226) for enforcement of public interest or rights of disadvantaged groups who cannot approach courts themselves. It represents the most significant democratization of justice in Indian legal history. PIL was pioneered by Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the late 1970s, relaxing the traditional rule of "locus standi." The genesis was the need to provide access to justice for the poor, illiterate, and marginalized who could not navigate the formal legal system. Landmark PILs: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) — right to speedy trial and legal aid; over 40,000 undertrials released; S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) — formally established PIL doctrine; Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) — bonded labour abolition; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (multiple cases from 1986) — environmental protection, closure of hazardous industries, CNG in Delhi vehicles, Ganga cleanup; Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) — sexual harassment guidelines at workplace; Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) — CBI independence; T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India (1996) — forest conservation across India; Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) — right to livelihood as part of Art 21. The SC has issued guidelines against frivolous PILs and can impose costs on petitioners filing PILs for personal gain or publicity.
Collegium System vs NJAC — Judicial Appointments Debate
The appointment of SC and HC judges is the most contentious aspect of judicial independence. The evolution proceeded through three landmark cases: First Judges Case — S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): SC held that "consultation" in Art 124(2) does not mean "concurrence" — the executive had primacy in appointments and could override the CJI's opinion. Second Judges Case — Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993): reversed the First Judges Case; held that the CJI's opinion has "primacy" and the CJI should consult the two senior-most SC judges before recommending appointments; effectively created the Collegium system. Third Judges Case — In Re Presidential Reference (1998): expanded the Collegium to CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges; required wider consultation with senior HC judges from the relevant state. In 2014, Parliament passed the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act to replace the Collegium with a six-member National Judicial Appointments Commission. The NJAC was struck down in 2015 by a 4:1 majority (Justice Chelameswar dissenting) on the ground that any significant executive role in judicial appointments would undermine judicial independence, which is a basic structure feature. Critics argue the Collegium system lacks transparency, accountability, and has led to nepotism and opaque decision-making — the SC itself acknowledged these flaws but held that the NJAC's design did not address them adequately. The Memorandum of Procedure for judicial appointments remains under renegotiation between the judiciary and the executive.
Judicial Activism, Judicial Restraint, and Evolving Role
The SC's role has evolved from conservative interpretation in the 1950s-60s to active judicial intervention from the 1970s onwards. The expansion of Art 21 is the most dramatic example: Maneka Gandhi (1978) read "due process" into Art 21; subsequent cases read in the right to livelihood (Olga Tellis, 1985), right to education (Unnikrishnan, 1993), right to health (Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity, 1996), right to clean environment (M.C. Mehta cases), right to shelter (Chameli Singh, 1996), right to privacy (Puttaswamy, 2017), and right to dignity (Francis Coralie Mullin, 1981). Judicial activism refers to the judiciary's proactive interpretation and intervention when other branches fail. Proponents cite PIL as essential for protecting marginalized communities. Critics argue that excessive activism amounts to "judicial overreach" — courts taking on legislative and executive functions (e.g., fixing timelines for government decisions, banning liquor near highways, monitoring police investigations). The SC has itself cautioned against overreach — in Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2008), it stated "judges must know their limits and must not try to run the government." The balance between activism and restraint remains the central question of Indian constitutional governance. Recent trends show the SC being more willing to adjudicate politically sensitive issues — the Ayodhya verdict (2019), abrogation of Article 370 (2023), Electoral Bonds case (2024), and same-sex marriage case (2023).
Key Articles at a Glance (Art 124-147)
Art 124: Establishment and constitution of SC; appointment and removal of judges. Art 125: Salaries, allowances, and conditions of service. Art 126: Appointment of acting CJI when the office is vacant or CJI is absent or unable to perform duties. Art 127: Appointment of ad hoc judges when quorum not available — a HC judge can sit as ad hoc judge with CJI's consent. Art 128: Retired SC or HC judges can sit at CJI's request with the President's consent. Art 129: SC is a court of record with contempt power. Art 130: Seat of the SC shall be in Delhi or such other place as the CJI may appoint with the President's approval. Art 131: Original jurisdiction (Centre-State and inter-State disputes). Art 132: Appellate jurisdiction in constitutional matters. Art 133: Appellate jurisdiction in civil matters. Art 134: Appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters. Art 134A: Certificate for appeal to SC. Art 135: Jurisdiction and powers of the Federal Court under existing law transferred to SC. Art 136: Special Leave Petition to appeal. Art 137: Review of judgments or orders by the SC. Art 138: Enlargement of jurisdiction by Parliament. Art 139: Conferment of power to issue writs for matters other than FRs. Art 139A: Transfer of certain cases from HCs to SC. Art 140: Ancillary powers of the SC. Art 141: Law declared by SC is binding on all courts. Art 142: Enforcement of decrees and orders — "complete justice" power. Art 143: Advisory jurisdiction. Art 144: All authorities to act in aid of the SC. Art 145: Rules of the Court; minimum quorum of 5 for constitutional cases. Art 146: Officers and servants of the SC; expenses charged on Consolidated Fund of India. Art 147: Interpretation — provisions related to SC apply to the Federal Court.
Expansion of Article 21 — The Living Constitution
The expansive interpretation of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) by the SC is the most remarkable example of judicial creativity in Indian constitutional history. The journey began with A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), where the SC adopted a narrow view — Art 21 only protects against executive action unsupported by law, not against legislative action. This was dramatically reversed in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), where the SC held that the procedure established by law must be "right, just, and fair" — effectively reading American "due process" into the Indian Constitution. Since Maneka Gandhi, the SC has read numerous rights into Art 21: right to live with dignity (Francis Coralie Mullin v. UT of Delhi, 1981), right to livelihood (Olga Tellis v. Bombay MC, 1985), right to shelter (Chameli Singh v. State of UP, 1996), right to health and medical care (Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of WB, 1996), right to clean environment (M.C. Mehta cases), right to education (Unnikrishnan v. State of AP, 1993 — later codified as Art 21A by 86th Amendment), right to speedy trial (Hussainara Khatoon, 1979), right to legal aid (Khatri v. State of Bihar, 1981), right against handcuffing (Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 1980), right to sleep (In Re Ramlila Maidan, 2012), right against solitary confinement (Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 1978), right to reputation (Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, 2016), and right to privacy (Puttaswamy, 2017). Art 21 has become the "residuary Fundamental Right" — a constitutional home for unenumerated rights.
The SC in the Emergency — ADM Jabalpur and Its Legacy
The Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), popularly known as the Habeas Corpus case, represents the SC's darkest hour. During the Internal Emergency (1975-77), the question was whether a person detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) could approach the courts when the President had suspended the right to move courts for enforcement of Arts 14, 19, and 21 under Art 359. By a 4:1 majority (Justices Ray, Beg, Chandrachud, and Bhagwati in the majority; Justice H.R. Khanna dissenting), the SC held that during Emergency, no person has any right to move any court for habeas corpus — even if the detention is illegal, mala fide, or based on extraneous grounds. Justice Khanna's dissent is one of the most celebrated in world judicial history: "The right to life and personal liberty is the most precious right of human beings. It was regarded as part of the freedom of individuals long before the advent of the Constitution." Khanna paid for his dissent with the Chief Justiceship — Justice Beg was appointed CJI superseding Khanna. In 2011, former CJI S.H. Kapadia observed that this judgment was "an aberration." In K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), a 9-judge bench formally overruled ADM Jabalpur, holding that Art 21 cannot be suspended even during Emergency. The 44th Amendment (1978) had already made Art 20 and 21 non-suspendable, ensuring no repeat of the ADM Jabalpur travesty.
Constitutional Bench, Bench Composition, and Case Allocation
The SC operates through different bench configurations. Division Bench: the standard bench for most matters consists of 2 or 3 judges. Constitutional Bench: Article 145(3) mandates that a minimum of 5 judges must sit for hearing any case involving a "substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution" or for hearing references under Art 143. The CJI has the exclusive power to constitute benches and allocate cases — this is the "Master of the Roster" doctrine, upheld in Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India (2018). Larger benches: the SC can constitute larger benches (7-judge, 9-judge, 11-judge, 13-judge) to reconsider earlier decisions. The largest bench ever was the 13-judge bench in Kesavananda Bharati (1973). By convention, a larger bench can overrule a smaller bench, but a bench of equal strength cannot overrule a coordinate bench — it can only refer the matter to a larger bench. The CJI's unilateral power over bench composition has been controversial: the 2018 press conference by 4 senior judges alleged that "cases having far-reaching consequences for the nation" were being selectively assigned to preferred benches. The SC has not reformed this system — the CJI remains the Master of the Roster, though informal conventions of consulting collegium members have developed. The SC sits in New Delhi but can hold circuit benches (Art 130) — this power has never been used despite persistent demands from southern and northeastern states for regional SC benches.
Curative Petition, Review, and Finality of SC Judgments
Article 137 gives the SC the power to review its own judgments or orders, subject to rules under Art 145. Order 47, Rule 1 of the SC Rules allows review on specific grounds: discovery of new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. A review petition must be filed within 30 days. Review petitions are ordinarily heard in chambers (by circulation, without oral arguments) by the same bench that delivered the judgment. If the review petition is also dismissed, the aggrieved party can file a Curative Petition — an extraordinary remedy created by the SC in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002). The SC held that a curative petition can be entertained to prevent abuse of process and cure gross miscarriage of justice. It must be certified by a senior advocate; heard first in chambers by the 3 senior-most judges (including CJI); referred to the original bench if they think it merits consideration. Grounds: violation of natural justice, bias of the judge, or abuse of process. This is the last judicial remedy available in India. The SC has also developed the practice of recalling its own orders under its inherent powers (Art 142) when required by the interests of justice. In S.C. Advocates-on-Record Association (2016), the SC used its curative jurisdiction to modify the NJAC judgment by directing reforms to the collegium system. The hierarchy of remedies is: Judgment → Review Petition → Curative Petition.
SC and Technology — E-Filing, Virtual Hearings, and Live Streaming
The SC has undergone significant technological modernization. The e-SCR (electronic Supreme Court Reports) project provides free access to all SC judgments since 1950. The SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency) AI portal was launched in 2021 to assist judges in processing cases. E-filing was introduced and accelerated during COVID-19. Virtual hearings became the norm during the pandemic (2020-2022) and continue in hybrid mode. In Swapnil Tripathi v. Union of India (2018), the SC itself ordered live streaming of proceedings of constitutional importance to promote transparency and access to justice. Live streaming began in 2022 for Constitution Bench hearings. The SC has also implemented the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) for case tracking and analytics. The FASTER (Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records) system was introduced in 2022 to transmit bail and other orders electronically to prison authorities, preventing delays in implementing court orders. The SC's case management system tracks approximately 65,000-80,000 new cases filed annually. As of 2024, approximately 80,000+ cases are pending in the SC. The average disposal time varies from months for urgent matters to years for regular cases. The SC has taken suo motu cognizance of backlog issues and has periodically constituted special benches for clearing arrears in specific categories (tax matters, criminal appeals, service matters).
Relevant Exams
One of the most critical polity topics across all competitive exams. UPSC Prelims frequently tests jurisdiction types (especially Art 131 vs Art 32), the Collegium system and Three Judges Cases, Basic Structure Doctrine, PIL landmark cases, and Article numbers (124-147). UPSC Mains asks about judicial activism vs restraint, NJAC debate, and SC's evolving role. SSC and banking exams focus on composition (34 judges), qualifications, retirement age (65), the five writs, and factual questions on landmark cases. The distinction between Art 32 and Art 226, and between Art 136 (SLP) and other appellate provisions, is a perennial favorite.