Judiciary in India

Judiciary in India

 This single system of courts, adopted from the

Government of India Act of 1935, enforces both Central
laws as well as the state laws.

 The Supreme Court of India was inaugurated on January

28, 1950. It succeeded the Federal Court of India,
established under the Government of India Act of 1935.

 The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is greater than

that of its predecessor.
 The Supreme Court has replaced the British
Privy Council as the highest court of appeal.

 Articles 124 to 147 in Part V of the Constitution

deal with the organization, independence,
jurisdiction, powers, procedures and so on of
the Supreme Court.

 The Parliament is also authorized to regulate

them.
 ORGANISATION OF SUPREME COURT

 The Supreme Court consists of thirty-one judges (one chief

justice and thirty other judges).

 There are currently 27 judges (including the Chief Justice of India)

and maximum possible strength is 34.

 In February 2009, the centre notified an increase in

the number of Supreme Court judges from twenty-six to
thirty-one, including the Chief Justice of India.

 The Parliament has increased this number of other judges

progressively to ten in 1956, to thirteen in 1960, to seventeen
in 1977 and to twenty-five in 1986.
 Appointment of Judges

 The judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by

the president.

 The chief justice is appointed by the president after

consultation with such judges of the Supreme
Court and high courts as he deems necessary.

 The other judges are appointed by president after

consultation with the chief justice and such other
judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts as he
deems necessary.
 Controversy over Consultation

 The Supreme Court has given different

interpretation of the word ‘consultation’.

 In the First Judges case (1982), the Court held that

consultation does not mean concurrence and
it only implies exchange of views.
 But, in the Second Judges case (1993), the Court
reversed its earlier ruling and changed the
meaning of the word consultation to
concurrence.

 The advice tendered by the Chief Justice of

India is binding on the President.

 But, the Chief Justice would tender his advice

on the matter after consulting two of his
senior most colleagues.
 Third Judges case (1998)

 The Court opined that the consultation process to

be adopted by the Chief justice of India
requires ‘consultation of plurality judges’.

 The sole opinion of the chief justice of India does not

constitute the consultation process.
 He should consult a collegium of four senior
most judges of the Supreme Court and even if
two judges give an adverse opinion, he should not
send the recommendation to the government.

 The court held that the recommendation made

by the chief justice of India without
complying with the norms and equirements
of the consultation process are not binding
on the government.
 Appointments Commission Act of 2014

 Appointments Commission Act of 2014 have replaced the

collegium system of appointing judges to the Supreme
Court and High Courts with a new body called the
National Judicial Appointments Commission
(NJAC).
 However, in 2015, the Supreme Court has declared
both the 99th Constitutional Amendment as well as
the NJAC Act as unconstitutional and void.

 Consequently, the earlier collegium system became

operative again. This verdict was delivered by the Supreme
Court in the Fourth Judges case a (2015).

 The court opined that the new system (i.e., NJAC) would
affect the independence of the judiciary.
 Appointment of Chief Justice

 From 1950 to 1973, the practice has been to appoint the

senior most judge of the Supreme Court as the chief justice
of India.

 This established convention was violated in 1973 when A N Ray

was appointed as the Chief Justice of India by superseding
three senior judges.

 Again in 1977, M U Beg was appointed as the chief justice of

India by superseding the then senior-most judge.

 This discretion of the government was curtailed by the Supreme

Court in the Second Judges Case (1993), in which the Supreme
Court ruled that the seniormost judge of the Supreme
Court should alone be appointed to the office of the chief
justice of India.
 Qualifications of Judges


1. He should be a citizen of India.

 2. (a) He should have been a judge of a High Court (or high

courts in succession) for five years; or

(b) He should have been an advocate of a High Court (or

High Courts in succession) for ten years; or

(c) He should be a distinguished jurist in the opinion of

the president.

 From the above, it is clear that the Constitution has not

prescribed a minimum age for appointment as a judge of
the Supreme Court.
 Oath or Affirmation

1. To bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of

India;

2. To uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India;

3. To duly and faithfully and to the best of his ability,

knowledge and judgement perform the duties of the
Office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will; and

4. To uphold the Constitution and the laws.

 Tenure of Judges

 The Constitution has not fixed the tenure of a judge of

the Supreme Court. However, it makes the following three
provisions in this regard:

1. He holds office until he attains the age of 65 years.
Any question regarding his age is to be determined by such
authority and in such manner as provided by Parliament.

2. He can resign his office by writing to the president.

3. He can be removed from his office by the President

on the recommendation of the Parliament.
 Removal of Judges

 A judge of the Supreme Court can be removed from his Office by an

order of the president.

 The President can issue the removal order only after an

address by Parliament has been presented to him in the same
session for such removal.

 The address must be supported by a special majority of

each House of Parliament (ie, a majority of the total
membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-
thirds of the members of that House present and voting).

 The grounds of removal are two—proved misbehaviour or

incapacity.
 The Judges Enquiry Act (1968)
 The Judges Enquiry Act (1968) regulates the procedure relating to the
removal of a judge of the Supreme Court by the process of impeachment:

 1. A removal motion signed by 100 members (in the case of Lok Sabha)
or 50 members (in the case of Rajya Sabha) is to be given to the
Speaker/Chairman.

 2. The Speaker/Chairman may admit the motion or refuse to admit

it.

 3. If it is admitted, then the Speaker/Chairman is to constitute a three

member committee to investigate into the charges.

 4. The committee should consist of

(a) the chief justice or a judge of the Supreme Court,
(b) a chief justice of a high court, and
(c) a distinguished jurist.
 5. If the committee finds the judge to be guilty of
misbehaviour or suffering from an incapacity, the House
can take up the consideration of the motion.
 6. After the motion is passed by each House of Parliament
by special majority, an address is presented to the
president for removal of the judge.

7. Finally, the president passes an order removing
the judge.
 The first and the only case of impeachment is that of Justice V
Ramaswami of the Supreme Court (1991–1993).

 Though the enquiry Committee found him guilty of

misbehaviour, he could not be removed as the impeachment
motion was defeated in the Lok Sabha. The Congress Party
abstained from voting
 Salaries and Allowances

 The salaries, allowances, privileges, leave and pension of the judges of

the Supreme Court are determined from time to time by the Parliament.

 They cannot be varied to their disadvantage after their appointment

except during a financial emergency.

 In 2009, the salary of the chief justice was increased from 33,000 to 1
lakh per month and that of a judge from 30,000 to 90,000 per month.

 They are also paid sumptuary allowance and provided with free
accommodation and other facilities like medical, car, telephone, etc.

 The retired chief justice and judges are entitled to 50 per cent of
their last drawn salary as monthly pension.
INDEPENDENCE OF SUPREME COURT

 The Supreme Court has been assigned a very

significant role in the Indian democratic political system.

 It is a federal court, the highest court of appeal, the

guarantor of the fundamental rights of the citizens
and guardian of the Constitution.

 Therefore, its independence becomes very essential

for the effective discharge of the duties assigned to it.
 It should be free from the encroachments, pressures
and interferences of the executive (council of
ministers) and the Legislature (Parliament).

 It should be allowed to deliver justice without fear or

favor.

 The Constitution has made many provisions to

safeguard and ensure the independent and
impartial functioning of the Supreme Court.
 1. Mode of Appointment

 The judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by

the President (which means the cabinet) in
consultation with the members of the judiciary itself
(i.e., judges of the Supreme Court and the high
courts).

 This provision curtails the absolute

discretion of the executive as well as ensures
that the judicial appointments are not based on any
political or practical considerations.
 2. Security of Tenure

 The judges of the Supreme Court are provided

with the Security of Tenure.
 They can be removed from office by the
President only in the manner and on the
grounds mentioned in the Constitution.
 This means that they do not hold their office
during the pleasure of the President, though
they are appointed by him.
 This is obvious from the fact that no judge of the
Supreme Court has been removed (or
impeached) so far.
 3. Fixed Service Conditions
 The salaries, allowances, privileges, leave
and pension of the judges of the Supreme Court
are determined from time to time by the
Parliament.

 They cannot be changed to their disadvantage

after their appointment except during a financial
emergency.

 Thus, the conditions of service of the judges of

the Supreme Court remain same during their
term of Office.
4. Expenses Charged on Consolidated Fund

 The salaries, allowances and pensions of the

judges and the staff as well as all the
administrative expenses of the Supreme
Court are charged on the Consolidated Fund
of India.

 Thus, they are non-votable by the Parliament

(though they can be discussed by it).
 5. Conduct of Judges cannot be Discussed

 The Constitution prohibits any discussion in

Parliament or in a State Legislature with
respect to the conduct of the judges of the
Supreme Court in the discharge of their duties,
except when an impeachment motion is under
consideration of the Parliament.
 6. Ban on Practice after Retirement

 The retired judges of the Supreme Court are

prohibited from pleading or acting in any
Court or before any authority within the territory of
India.

 This ensures that they do not favour any one in

the hope of future favour.
 7. Power to Punish for its Contempt

 The Supreme Court can punish any person for

its contempt.

 Thus, its actions and decisions cannot be

criticised and opposed by any body.

 This power is vested in the Supreme Court to

maintain its authority, dignity and honour.
 8. Freedom to Appoint its Staff

 The Chief Justice of India can appoint officers and

servants of the Supreme Court without any
interference from the executive.

 He can also prescribe their conditions of service.

 9. Its Jurisdiction cannot be Curtailed

 The Parliament is not authorised to curtail

the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme
Court.
 The Constitution has guaranteed to the
Supreme Court, jurisdiction of various kinds.
However, the Parliament can extend the same.
 10. Separation from Executive

 The Constitution directs the State to take

steps to separate the Judiciary from the
Executive in the public services.

 This means that the executive authorities

should not possess the judicial powers.

 Consequently, upon its implementation, the role of

executive authorities in judicial
administration came to an end.
 PROCEDURE OF THE COURT
 The Supreme Court can, with the approval of the
president, make rules for regulating generally the
practice and procedure of the Court.
 The Constitutional cases or references made by the
President under Article 143 are decided by a Bench
consisting of at least five judges.
 All other cases are usually decided by a bench
consisting of not less than three judges.
 The judgements are delivered by the open court.
 All judgements are by majority vote but if differing,
then judges can give dissenting judgements or
opinions.
JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF SUPREME
COURT

 The Constitution has conferred a very extensive

jurisdiction and vast powers on the Supreme Court.
It is not only a Federal Court like the American
Supreme Court but also a final court of appeal like
the British House of Lords (the Upper House of the
British Parliament). It is also the final interpreter
and guardian of the Constitution and guarantor of
the fundamental rights of the citizens. Further, it has
advisory and supervisory powers. Therefore,
 Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar, a member of the
Drafting Committee of the Constitution, rightly
remarked:

“The Supreme Court of India has more powers than

any other Supreme Court in any part of the world.”
 The jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court
can be classified into the following:
1. Original Jurisdiction.
2. Appellate Jurisdiction.
3. Advisory Jurisdiction.
4. Review Jurisdiction
 Original Jurisdiction

 As a federal court, the Supreme Court decides the

disputes between different units of the Indian
Federation. More elaborately, any dispute between:

(a) the Centre and one or more states; or

(b) the Centre and any state or states on one side and
one or more states on the other; or
(c) between two or more states.

In the above federal disputes, the Supreme Court has

exclusive original jurisdiction.
 Appellate Jurisdiction

 As per article 132, 133, 134 of the Constitution, the

SC has appellate jurisdiction in matters that are
related to civil, criminal, or Constitution. Also, as per
article 136, the SC has the power to issue special
leave that is being by any tribunal courts in India but
this does not apply to Army courts.
 Advisory Jurisdiction

 As per article 143 of the Constitution, the SC can

advise the President of India that is related to the
question of law, and the nature of the matter is
associated with the public importance. And the
President can also seek opinion in the matters that
are related to Article 131 of the Constitution.
 Review Jurisdiction

 As per article 137 of the Constitution, the SC has the

power to review any laws that are being passed by
the legislature.
 Conclusion

 The Supreme Court is the highest appealing body in

our jurisdiction. With its establishment, justice is
being proclaimed by the citizens of India. The
powers that are vested upon the SC are to ensure the
fair trial in matters that are about the Constitution of
India; hence it also protects the world’s largest
democratic state.
Thank you