Indian Judiciary — Supreme Court, High Courts & Judicial Review

Constitutional Framework

India has an integrated judicial system with the Supreme Court at the apex, High Courts at the state level, and subordinate courts at the district level. Unlike the USA (which has separate federal and state court systems), Indian courts handle both central and state laws.

The judiciary is the guardian of the Constitution and protector of Fundamental Rights.

Supreme Court of India

Composition (Article 124)

Qualifications (Article 124(3))

A person to be appointed as a Supreme Court Judge must:

• Be a citizen of India
• Have been a High Court Judge for at least 5 years, OR
• Have been an Advocate of a High Court for at least 10 years, OR
• Be a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President

Appointment of Judges

Collegium System (Current Method)

• Evolved through three Judges Cases (not mentioned in the Constitution)
• First Judges Case (1981) — S.P. Gupta v. Union of India: President's primacy in appointing judges; "consultation" does not mean "concurrence"
• Second Judges Case (1993) — Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association: CJI's opinion has primacy; introduced the Collegium (CJI + 2 senior-most judges)
• Third Judges Case (1998) — Presidential reference: Expanded Collegium to CJI + 4 senior-most judges for Supreme Court appointments

Remember: The Collegium is a judicial creation — the word "Collegium" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. It evolved through three Judges Cases (1981, 1993, 1998). The Constitution only says the President shall appoint judges "after consultation" with the CJI. The Collegium effectively converted "consultation" into "concurrence."

NJAC (Struck Down)

• 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 — Created the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) consisting of:
  • CJI (Chairperson)
  • 2 senior-most SC Judges
  • Union Law Minister
  • 2 eminent persons (nominated by PM, CJI, and Leader of Opposition)
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) — SC struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act as unconstitutional, holding that it violated the independence of the judiciary (a Basic Structure feature)

Removal of Judges (Article 124(4))

• Only by impeachment — an order of the President after an address by each House of Parliament supported by:
  • Special majority in each House (majority of total membership + 2/3rd of members present and voting)
• Grounds: Proved misbehaviour or incapacity
• No SC Judge has ever been successfully impeached
  • Justice V. Ramaswami (1993) — impeachment motion failed in Lok Sabha
  • Justice Soumitra Sen (2011) — Rajya Sabha passed but he resigned before Lok Sabha could vote

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

1. Original Jurisdiction (Article 131)

• Disputes between:
  • Government of India and one or more States
  • Government of India and any State(s) on one side vs. one or more States on the other
  • Two or more States
• Excludes: disputes arising out of pre-Constitutional treaties/agreements

2. Writ Jurisdiction (Article 32)

• Power to issue writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo Warranto) for enforcement of Fundamental Rights
• Dr. Ambedkar called Article 32 the "heart and soul" of the Constitution

3. Appellate Jurisdiction

4. Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143)

• President can seek SC's opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance
• SC's advice is not binding on the President
• Examples:
  • Delhi Laws Act case (1951)
  • Berubari Union case (1960)
  • Cauvery Water Dispute (1992)
  • 2G Spectrum case reference

5. Court of Record (Article 129)

• Proceedings are recorded and can be used as evidence
• Power to punish for contempt of court (civil and criminal contempt)

Judicial Review

The power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders. If found violative of the Constitution, they can be declared void.

Judicial Review vs. Judicial Activism

Comparison: Article 32 (SC) vs Article 226 (HC) — the most tested distinction: Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right (can't be suspended except during Emergency), while Article 226 is not. But Article 226 has a wider scope — it can issue writs for "any other purpose", not just for FRs. So the SC's writ jurisdiction is narrower but more protected, while the HC's is broader but less protected.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Introduced in the late 1970s–early 1980s by Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer.

Key Features

• Any public-spirited citizen can file a petition on behalf of disadvantaged persons
• Relaxation of locus standi (the petitioner need not be directly affected)
• Can be filed through a simple letter to the Chief Justice
• Filed under Article 32 (SC) or Article 226 (HC)

Landmark PILs

High Courts (Articles 214–231)

Article 226 vs. Article 32

Subordinate Courts (Articles 233–237)

• District Courts — highest court at the district level
• Headed by the District Judge (appointed by the Governor in consultation with the HC)
• Below: Civil Courts, Criminal Courts (Sessions Court, Magistrate Courts)
• Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 — village courts for speedy justice in rural areas
• Lok Adalats (Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987) — alternative dispute resolution; decisions are final and binding

Key Articles at a Glance

Important for UPSC

Prelims Focus

• SC strength: 34 judges (CJI + 33); retirement at 65; HC judges at 62
• Collegium: CJI + 4 senior-most judges (Third Judges Case, 1998)
• NJAC struck down in 2015 (99th Amendment)
• Article 32 vs. 226 — scope and differences
• Types of jurisdiction — Original (131), Appellate (132–136), Advisory (143)
• Number of High Courts: 25

Mains GS-2 Dimensions

• Collegium system vs. NJAC — which better ensures judicial independence?
• Judicial activism: saviour of rights or judicial overreach?
• Pendency crisis — over 5 crore cases pending; reforms needed
• PIL: democratisation of justice or misuse for publicity?
• Should there be a fixed tenure for CJI instead of seniority-based appointment?

Interview Angles

• "Is the judiciary too powerful in India?"
• "How would you reform the appointment process for judges?"
• "Should there be a time limit for courts to decide cases?"

Vocabulary

Suo Motu

• Pronunciation: /ˌsuː.əʊ ˈməʊ.tuː/
• Definition: A Latin term meaning "on its own motion," used when a court takes cognizance of a matter and initiates proceedings independently, without a formal petition or complaint from any party.
• Origin: From Latin suō ("of its own," ablative of suus) + mōtū ("by motion," ablative of mōtus, from movēre, "to move"); widely used in Indian and South Asian legal practice.

Contempt

• Pronunciation: /kənˈtɛmpt/
• Definition: The offence of being disobedient to or disrespectful towards a court of law; under Article 129, the Supreme Court (and under Article 215, every High Court) has the power to punish for contempt of itself, covering both civil contempt (wilful disobedience of a court order) and criminal contempt (acts that scandalise or lower the authority of the court).
• Origin: From Late Middle English, via Latin contemptus ("scorn"), from contemnere ("to despise"), formed from con- (intensive prefix) + temnere ("to slight, despise").

Certiorari

• Pronunciation: /ˌsɜːr.ʃi.əˈrɛər.aɪ/
• Definition: A writ issued by a superior court to a lower court or tribunal directing it to transmit the record of a case for review, typically to quash an order passed without jurisdiction or in violation of natural justice principles.
• Origin: From Law Latin certiorārī ("to be informed, to be made certain"), from certiorāre ("to certify, inform"), from certus ("certain, sure"); the full original phrase was certiorārī volumus ("we wish to be informed"), dating to 15th-century English common law.

Key Terms

Public Interest Litigation

• Pronunciation: /ˈpʌb.lɪk ˈɪn.trɪst ˌlɪt.ɪˈɡeɪ.ʃən/
• Definition: A judicial innovation developed in India in the late 1970s–early 1980s primarily by Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, whereby any public-spirited citizen or organisation can approach the Supreme Court (under Article 32) or a High Court (under Article 226) on behalf of disadvantaged persons or groups whose fundamental or legal rights are being violated — radically relaxing the traditional requirement of locus standi (the petitioner need not be personally aggrieved). A PIL can be initiated even through a simple letter addressed to the Chief Justice, which the court can treat as a writ petition.
• Context: The concept of public interest litigation originated in the United States in the 1960s as part of the civil rights movement; in India, its early seeds were planted in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai (1976) and Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. UOI (1981). The first landmark PIL was Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), filed by advocate Kapila Hingorani before Justice P.N. Bhagwati, highlighting the plight of undertrial prisoners in Bihar who had been detained for periods far exceeding the maximum sentence for their alleged offences — the case led to the release of over 40,000 undertrial prisoners and established the right to speedy trial under Article 21. Subsequent landmark PILs transformed Indian law: Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI (1984, bonded labour), M.C. Mehta v. UOI (1986, environmental protection), Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997, sexual harassment guidelines). To curb misuse — what the SC has termed "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" — the Court has issued guidelines limiting PIL to genuine public interest matters and imposing costs on frivolous petitioners.
• UPSC Relevance: GS2 Polity — Prelims: pioneers (Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer), first major PIL (Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1979), relaxation of locus standi, can be filed under Article 32 (SC) or Article 226 (HC), can be initiated through a letter to the CJI; Mains: PIL as a tool for social justice vs judicial overreach (courts acting as "super-legislatures"), misuse of PIL for private interests and publicity, should PIL be codified with a statutory framework (currently judge-made), evaluate PIL's transformative role in environmental protection (M.C. Mehta), prisoners' rights (Hussainara Khatoon), and women's rights (Vishaka), PIL and the separation of powers — does it blur the line between judicial and executive functions.

Collegium System

• Pronunciation: /kəˈliː.dʒi.əm ˈsɪs.təm/
• Definition: The judicially evolved mechanism for appointing and transferring judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, whereby a collegium headed by the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most Supreme Court judges (for SC appointments) or the CJI and two senior-most judges (for HC appointments) recommends names to the government. The word "collegium" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution — the system was entirely created through judicial interpretation of the word "consultation" in Article 124(2), converting it into "concurrence" through three landmark Judges Cases.
• Context: The system evolved through three stages: (1) First Judges Case — S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): A 7-judge bench held that "consultation" with the CJI does not mean "concurrence," giving the executive (President) primacy in judicial appointments over the judiciary. (2) Second Judges Case — Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993): A 9-judge bench overruled the First Judges Case, holding that the CJI's opinion has primacy and "consultation" effectively means "concurrence" — thereby creating the Collegium system (CJI + 2 senior-most SC judges for SC appointments). (3) Third Judges Case (1998): In response to a Presidential Reference under Article 143, the SC expanded the Collegium to CJI + 4 senior-most judges for SC appointments and CJI + 2 senior-most judges for HC appointments. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), created by the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act (2014) and the NJAC Act (2014), attempted to replace the Collegium with a 6-member body (CJI + 2 senior SC judges + Law Minister + 2 eminent persons). However, in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (16 October 2015), a 5-judge Constitution Bench struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act by 4:1 majority, holding that the NJAC violated the independence of the judiciary — a basic structure feature. The government retains a "reiteration" power — it can return a Collegium recommendation once, but if the Collegium reiterates its recommendation, the government is bound to accept it.
• UPSC Relevance: GS2 Polity — Prelims: three Judges Cases (1981, 1993, 1998), composition of Collegium (CJI + 4 for SC, CJI + 2 for HC), NJAC struck down on 16 October 2015 (99th Amendment declared unconstitutional, 4:1), "consultation" vs "concurrence" distinction, the word "collegium" does not appear in the Constitution; Mains: Collegium vs NJAC — transparency and accountability (Collegium criticised as opaque) vs judicial independence (NJAC criticised for giving executive a veto through "eminent persons"), government's reiteration power and its limits, should there be a reformed NJAC with judicial majority, comparison with judicial appointment systems in the USA (Presidential nomination + Senate confirmation), UK (Judicial Appointments Commission), and India (Collegium).

Current Affairs Connect

Link these static concepts with live developments:

Exam tip: Maintain a running list of landmark SC judgments from the past year. Read Ujiyari's polity coverage to stay updated — SC rulings are the most asked current affairs in Prelims.

Sources: Supreme Court of India, Constitution of India, PRS India — NJAC, National Portal