Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court is the apex judicial body established under Art 124. It serves as the final interpreter of the Constitution (Art 141), the guarantor of Fundamental Rights (Art 32), and a court of record with contempt power (Art 129). Its decisions bind all courts in India. The SC exercises original, appellate, advisory, and writ jurisdiction, and possesses the extraordinary "complete justice" power under Art 142. Exams test jurisdiction types (Art 131 vs Art 32 vs Art 136), the Collegium system and Three Judges Cases, Basic Structure Doctrine, PIL landmarks, and the five writs.
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
Art 124(1) establishes the SC as the apex court. Articles 124-147 (Part V, Chapter IV) govern its organization, independence, jurisdiction, and powers. The SC serves as final interpreter (Art 141), FR guardian (Art 32), and court of record (Art 129). The seat is in Delhi, but the CJI can appoint other seats with Presidential approval (Art 130). This power has never been exercised. The Federal Court of India (1937-1950) was the predecessor. The SC began on 28 January 1950 with 8 judges (CJI + 7). Sanctioned strength has risen progressively: 10 (1956), 13 (1960), 17 (1977), 25 (1986), 30 (2008), 33 (2019), making the current total 34 (CJI + 33). The SC has consistently held that its independence is part of the basic structure. The current strength (34), Art 130 (never used), and the basic structure characterization are standard exam facts.
Composition, Qualifications, and Appointment
Art 124(1): the SC consists of the CJI and such number of judges as Parliament prescribes (currently 34). Qualifications (Art 124(3)): citizen of India; must have been an HC judge for at least 5 years, or an HC advocate for at least 10 years, or a distinguished jurist in the President's opinion. No one has been appointed under the "distinguished jurist" category. Appointment: by the President "after consultation" with SC and HC judges (Art 124(2)). In practice, the Collegium system governs. First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta, 1981): executive had primacy. Second Judges Case (1993): reversed this; CJI's opinion has primacy; Collegium of CJI + 2 senior SC judges. Third Judges Case (1998): expanded Collegium to CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges; required wider consultation. The NJAC (99th Amendment + NJAC Act, 2014) proposed a 6-member commission (CJI, 2 SC judges, Law Minister, 2 eminent persons). The SC struck it down 4:1 in 2015 as violating judicial independence (basic structure). The CJI is appointed by seniority convention, breached in 1973 (Ray superseded 3 seniors) and 1977 (Beg superseded Khanna). The Three Judges Cases sequence, the NJAC composition, and the seniority convention breaches are top-tested items.
Tenure, Removal, and Conditions of Service
SC judges serve until age 65 (Art 124(2)). A judge may resign by writing to the President. Removal requires impeachment for "proved misbehaviour or incapacity": a motion signed by 100 LS or 50 RS members; investigation by a 3-member committee (SC judge, HC CJ, distinguished jurist); adoption by 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 attempt was against Justice V. Ramaswami (1993); the LS motion failed to secure the special majority. Salaries 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 and are non-votable. Current CJI salary: Rs 2,80,000/month; other judges: Rs 2,50,000/month. Art 124(7) bars SC judges from practising in any court after retirement. The 65-year age, the 100/50 motion threshold, the Ramaswami failed impeachment, and the post-retirement practice bar are frequently tested.
Original Jurisdiction (Art 131)
Art 131 gives the SC exclusive original jurisdiction in disputes between: the Government of India and one or more states; the Government of India and states on one side versus other states; and two or more states. The dispute must involve a question of law or fact on which a legal right depends. Purely political disputes are excluded. Art 131 does not cover: pre-Constitution treaty/agreement disputes (proviso); inter-state water disputes (Art 262 exclusion via the Inter-State Water Disputes Act); disputes where a state merely represents citizen interests. The SC in State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1978) held that Art 131 cannot challenge the constitutionality of central laws; Art 32 or Art 226 must be used for that. Art 131 is relatively rarely invoked compared to Art 32. The Art 131 vs Art 32 distinction and the inter-state water dispute exclusion are tested in jurisdiction-matching questions.
Writ Jurisdiction (Art 32) and Fundamental Rights Enforcement
Art 32 empowers the SC to issue writs for FR enforcement. Ambedkar called it "the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it." Art 32 is itself a Fundamental Right. The five writs: (1) Habeas Corpus (produce an unlawfully detained person); (2) Mandamus (command a public authority to perform its duty); (3) Prohibition (prevent a lower court/tribunal from exceeding jurisdiction); (4) Certiorari (quash a lower court/tribunal order made without or beyond jurisdiction); (5) Quo Warranto (challenge the legal authority for holding a public office). Art 32 is invocable only for FR violations, not ordinary legal rights (Art 226 serves for those). The SC in Romesh Thappar (1950) affirmed Art 32 as a guaranteed remedy. Art 32 can be suspended during National Emergency under Art 359, but the 44th Amendment ensures Art 20 and Art 21 cannot be suspended. The SC uses Art 32 creatively through PILs to indirectly enforce DPSPs via expanded Art 21 interpretations. The 5 writs, the "soul of the Constitution" quote, and the Art 32 vs Art 226 distinction are perennial exam items.
Appellate Jurisdiction (Art 132-136)
The SC has the widest appellate jurisdiction of any apex court. (1) Constitutional (Art 132): appeal from HC judgment if the HC certifies a substantial question of constitutional law interpretation. (2) Civil (Art 133): appeal if the HC certifies a substantial question of general importance needing SC determination. (3) Criminal (Art 134): appeal as of right if the HC reverses acquittal and sentences to death, withdraws and convicts with death sentence, or certifies the case fit for appeal. (4) Special Leave Petition (Art 136): the most used provision. The SC can grant special leave to appeal from any judgment of any court or tribunal in India (except military tribunals). Art 136 is an extraordinary residuary power; no conditions bind it. 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 but gives discretion to intervene where gross injustice occurs. The SLP volume (65,000-80,000 annually), the death sentence reversal (Art 134 as-of-right appeal), and the Art 136 residuary character are key points.
Advisory Jurisdiction (Art 143)
Art 143(1) allows the President to refer any question of law or fact of public importance for the SC's opinion. The SC may give or decline to give its opinion. Under Art 143(2), the President can refer pre-constitutional treaty disputes; here the SC is obliged to respond. Advisory opinions are not binding on the President or government but carry great persuasive value. Notable references: In Re Berubari Union (1960): ceding territory requires a constitutional amendment. In Re Kerala Education Bill (1958): constitutionality of the bill. In Re Special Courts Bill (1979). In Re Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1993). The Delhi Laws Act case (1951) was the first reference. The SC declined the Ayodhya reference (1993), holding the question superfluous. The non-binding nature, the Berubari ruling (territory cession needs amendment), and the Ayodhya decline are tested factually.
Court of Record, Contempt Power, and Art 142
Art 129 makes the SC a court of record: its records are preserved as evidence and cannot be questioned, and it can punish for contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines civil contempt (wilful disobedience) and criminal contempt (scandalizing or lowering court authority). In Prashant Bhushan v. SC (2020), the Court found a lawyer guilty of criminal contempt for tweets criticizing the CJI. Art 142 empowers the SC to pass any decree or order for "complete justice." This extraordinary power has been used to dissolve marriages where divorce was unavailable, direct Bhopal gas tragedy compensation, order the Union Carbide settlement, implement Vishaka guidelines, and waive the 6-month cooling period for mutual consent divorce. In SC Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the SC clarified that Art 142 cannot override substantive law. Art 144 requires all civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the SC. The "complete justice" scope of Art 142, the substantive-law limitation (SC Bar Association), and the Art 144 aid provision are analytically important.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
PIL allows any public-spirited person to approach the SC (Art 32) or HCs (Art 226) for enforcement of public interest or rights of disadvantaged groups. It represents the most significant democratization of justice in Indian legal history. Pioneers: Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the late 1970s, relaxing traditional locus standi. Landmark PILs: Hussainara Khatoon v. Bihar (1979), right to speedy trial, over 40,000 undertrials released; S.P. Gupta v. UoI (1981), formally established PIL doctrine; Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984), bonded labour abolition; M.C. Mehta cases (from 1986), environmental protection, CNG in Delhi, Ganga cleanup; Vishaka v. Rajasthan (1997), sexual harassment guidelines; Vineet Narain (1998), CBI independence; T.N. Godavarman (1996), forest conservation; Olga Tellis (1985), right to livelihood under Art 21. The SC has issued guidelines against frivolous PILs and can impose costs on misuse. The Hussainara Khatoon case, the Vishaka guidelines, and the M.C. Mehta environmental series are the most frequently tested PIL landmarks.
Collegium System vs NJAC — Judicial Appointments Debate
The appointment debate evolved through three cases. First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta, 1981): "consultation" in Art 124(2) does not mean "concurrence"; executive had primacy. Second Judges Case (1993): reversed this; CJI's opinion has primacy; the judiciary controls appointments through a Collegium of CJI + 2 senior SC judges. Third Judges Case (1998): expanded Collegium to CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges; mandated wider consultation with senior HC judges. The NJAC (99th Amendment + NJAC Act, 2014) proposed replacing the Collegium with a 6-member commission. The SC struck it down 4:1 (Justice Chelameswar dissenting) because any significant executive role in appointments would undermine judicial independence (basic structure). Critics argue the Collegium lacks transparency, accountability, and promotes nepotism. The SC acknowledged these flaws but held that the NJAC's design did not adequately address them. The Memorandum of Procedure for appointments remains under renegotiation. The 3-case evolution, the NJAC 6-member composition, and the basic structure rationale for striking down NJAC are core exam material.
Judicial Activism, Judicial Restraint, and Evolving Role
The SC's role evolved from conservative interpretation (1950s-60s) to active intervention (1970s onward). The Art 21 expansion is the most dramatic example: Maneka Gandhi (1978) read due process into Art 21; subsequent cases added the right to livelihood (Olga Tellis, 1985), education (Unnikrishnan, 1993), health (Paschim Banga, 1996), clean environment (M.C. Mehta), shelter (Chameli Singh, 1996), privacy (Puttaswamy, 2017), and dignity (Francis Coralie Mullin, 1981). Judicial activism means proactive interpretation when other branches fail. Critics call excessive activism "judicial overreach" -- courts taking on legislative and executive functions. In Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2008), the SC warned that "judges must know their limits and must not try to run the government." Recent trends show the SC adjudicating politically sensitive issues: Ayodhya (2019), Art 370 abrogation (2023), Electoral Bonds (2024), and same-sex marriage (2023). The activism-vs-restraint balance, the Art 21 expansion catalogue, and the Aravali Golf Club self-restraint dictum are standard Mains analytical topics.
Key Articles at a Glance (Art 124-147)
Art 124: establishment, appointment, removal. Art 125: salaries and conditions. Art 126: acting CJI. Art 127: ad hoc judges (HC judge sits with CJI consent). Art 128: retired judges can sit at CJI request with President's consent. Art 129: court of record with contempt power. Art 130: seat in Delhi (other places with CJI + President approval). Art 131: original jurisdiction. Art 132: appellate (constitutional). Art 133: appellate (civil). Art 134: appellate (criminal). Art 134A: certificate for appeal. Art 135: Federal Court jurisdiction transferred. Art 136: SLP. Art 137: review of judgments. Art 138: Parliament can enlarge jurisdiction. Art 139: writ power for non-FR matters. Art 139A: transfer of cases from HCs to SC. Art 140: ancillary powers. Art 141: law declared by SC binds all courts. Art 142: "complete justice" power. Art 143: advisory jurisdiction. Art 144: all authorities to act in aid of SC. Art 145: rules of court; minimum 5 judges for constitutional cases. Art 146: officers and expenses charged on CFI. Art 147: interpretation. The Art 145(3) five-judge minimum for constitutional questions and the Art 141 binding-on-all-courts declaration are the most frequently tested article-number items.
Expansion of Article 21 — The Living Constitution
The Art 21 expansion is the most remarkable judicial creativity in Indian constitutional history. A.K. Gopalan v. Madras (1950) adopted a narrow view: Art 21 protects only against executive action unsupported by law. Maneka Gandhi (1978) reversed this: procedure established by law must be "right, just, and fair." Since then, the SC has read into Art 21: right to live with dignity (Francis Coralie Mullin, 1981), livelihood (Olga Tellis, 1985), shelter (Chameli Singh, 1996), health (Paschim Banga, 1996), clean environment (M.C. Mehta), education (Unnikrishnan, 1993, later codified as Art 21A by 86th Amendment), speedy trial (Hussainara Khatoon, 1979), legal aid (Khatri v. Bihar, 1981), freedom from handcuffing (Sunil Batra, 1980), sleep (In Re Ramlila Maidan, 2012), freedom from solitary confinement (Sunil Batra, 1978), reputation (Subramanian Swamy, 2016), and privacy (Puttaswamy, 2017). Art 21 has become the "residuary Fundamental Right." The Gopalan-to-Maneka reversal, the case-right pairings, and the "residuary FR" characterization are heavily tested in both Prelims and Mains.
The SC in the Emergency — ADM Jabalpur and Its Legacy
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), the Habeas Corpus case, represents the SC's darkest hour. During the Emergency (1975-77), the question was whether a detained person could seek habeas corpus when the President had suspended Art 14, 19, and 21 enforcement under Art 359. By 4:1 (Ray, Beg, Chandrachud, Bhagwati in majority; Khanna dissenting), the SC held that no person has any right to approach courts for habeas corpus during Emergency. Khanna's dissent is among the most celebrated in world judicial history: "The right to life and personal liberty is the most precious right of human beings." Khanna paid with the Chief Justiceship; Beg was appointed over him. In Puttaswamy (2017), a 9-judge bench formally overruled ADM Jabalpur, holding that Art 21 cannot be suspended during Emergency. The 44th Amendment had already made Art 20 and Art 21 non-suspendable. The 4:1 ratio, Khanna's dissent and supersession, the Puttaswamy overruling, and the 44th Amendment non-suspension safeguard are standard exam items.
Constitutional Bench, Bench Composition, and Case Allocation
The SC operates through different bench configurations. Division Bench: 2 or 3 judges for most matters. Constitutional Bench: Art 145(3) mandates minimum 5 judges for cases involving substantial constitutional law interpretation or Art 143 references. The CJI has exclusive power to constitute benches and allocate cases, the "Master of the Roster" doctrine upheld in Campaign for Judicial Accountability v. UoI (2018). Larger benches (7, 9, 11, 13 judges) reconsider earlier decisions. The largest was the 13-judge bench in Kesavananda (1973). A larger bench can overrule a smaller bench; an equal-strength bench must refer to a larger bench rather than overrule a coordinate bench. The 2018 press conference by 4 senior judges alleged selective case assignment to preferred benches. No structural reform followed. The SC sits in Delhi but can hold circuit benches (Art 130); demands from southern and northeastern states for regional benches persist. The Art 145(3) minimum, the Master of Roster doctrine, and the larger-bench-overrules-smaller convention are important for Mains.
Curative Petition, Review, and Finality of SC Judgments
Art 137 empowers the SC to review its own judgments. Review grounds: discovery of new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient reason. Review petitions must be filed within 30 days. They are ordinarily heard in chambers (by circulation, without oral argument) by the same bench. If review is also dismissed, a Curative Petition is the last remedy, created by the SC in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002). Curative petition grounds: violation of natural justice, judge's bias, or abuse of process. It must be certified by a senior advocate. It is first heard in chambers by the 3 senior-most judges (including CJI); referred to the original bench if meriting consideration. The SC can also recall orders under Art 142 in the interests of justice. The remedy hierarchy is: Judgment, then Review Petition, then Curative Petition. The Rupa Ashok Hurra case creating the curative remedy, the 30-day review filing window, and the 3-stage hierarchy are tested factually.
SC and Technology — E-Filing, Virtual Hearings, and Live Streaming
The SC has undergone significant technological modernization. The e-SCR project provides free access to all SC judgments since 1950. SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency) launched in 2021 as an AI-assisted case processing tool. E-filing accelerated during COVID-19. Virtual hearings became standard during the pandemic and continue in hybrid mode. In Swapnil Tripathi v. UoI (2018), the SC ordered live streaming of constitutional bench proceedings for transparency. Live streaming began in 2022 for Constitution Bench hearings. FASTER (Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records, 2022) transmits bail and other orders electronically to prison authorities, preventing implementation delays. The SC handles approximately 65,000-80,000 new cases annually. About 80,000+ cases are pending. The Court periodically constitutes special benches for clearing arrears. The FASTER system, the Swapnil Tripathi live streaming order, and the SUPACE AI portal are current-affairs-relevant items.
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.