Saturday, March 1, 2025

supreme court of india continue shyam institute

Supreme Court of India - Telugu to English Translation (Page 21-37)

1. Original Jurisdiction (Article 131)

* Protecting the federal nature comes under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
* All federal disputes must be resolved in the Supreme Court.
* Some disputes are exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
* Disputes between the Center and States.
* Inter-state disputes (Disputes between states).
* Problems arising when the Center is on one side and several states are on the other.
* It adjudicates matters determining constitutional validity.
* Resolves disputes related to the elections of the President and Vice-President.
* Protection of Fundamental Rights.
* Primarily, the above matters relate to the federal system. Disputes arising on these matters are adjudicated by the independent judiciary, the Supreme Court.
* For the first time under original jurisdiction, in 1967, a dispute arose between the Center and States in the case of West Bengal vs. Union of India regarding the Coal Mines Area (Acquisition and Development) Act.
* In the case of Karnataka State vs. Government of India (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that the Central Government's constitution of Commissions of Inquiry against state governments is not unconstitutional.

Matters not under the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Provision-280 → * Matters falling under the purview of the Central Finance Commission.
Provision-262 → * Judgments given by tribunals constituted by the Center on inter-state river water disputes and laws made by Parliament in pursuance thereof.
Provision-275 → * Matters related to grants-in-aid for assistance funds given by the Center to the states.
Provision-290 → * Understanding agreements related to transactions between the Center and States, the Supreme Court should not interfere.
Provision-253 → * Disputes arising in respect of agreements entered into by the Prime Minister of India with foreign countries.
Provision-82 → * Laws framed by Parliament on the reorganization of Lok Sabha and State Assembly constituencies in accordance with the recommendations of the Delimitation Commission cannot be questioned before the Supreme Court.
Provision-304 → * Laws related to inter-state trade and commerce.

2. Appellate Jurisdiction

* The Supreme Court is the highest court in the country, so those dissatisfied with the judgment given by the High Court at the lower level can appeal to the Supreme Court.
* Appeals are mainly of 4 types:
  1. Constitutional Appeals (Article 132)
  2. Civil Appeals (Article 133)
  3. Criminal Appeals (Article 134)
  4. Special Appeals / Special Leave Petition (Article 136)

a) Constitutional Appeals (Article 132)

* Article 132 deals with Constitutional Appeals.
* If laws enacted by state governments question the constitutional validity, they can be appealed in the Supreme Court.
* If the High Court certifies that the judgments given by it require deeper interpretation of the Constitution, appeals of such cases can be made in the Supreme Court.

b) Civil Appeals (Article 133)

* Appeals related to civil disputes.
* In any property dispute, if the High Court believes that a deep aspect related to law is involved in the judgment given by it, or if the High Court believes and certifies that a constitutional aspect is involved in this dispute, an appeal can be made to the Supreme Court.
* The value of the property must be more than ₹20,000/-.
* But by the 30th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1973, this financial limit was removed.

c) Criminal Appeals (Article 134)

* Criminal appeals, Supreme Court provides an opportunity to appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgments given by High Courts in various criminal cases.
* In some criminal matters, appeals can be made to the Supreme Court even without the permission of the High Court.
  1. When the District Sessions Court acquits the accused in any case, and when appeals are made in the High Court against the judgments given by the lower court, if the High Court reverses the judgment given by the lower court and sentences the accused to death or life imprisonment.
  2. When the High Court transfers a case being tried by the District Sessions Court to itself, conducts the trial, and sentences the accused to death/life imprisonment.
* In 1970, Parliament expanded the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Criminal through an Act.
* According to this, the Supreme Court can admit an appeal if the High Court sentences the accused to life imprisonment or 10 years imprisonment against the judgment of the lower court.
* Appeals can also be made in the Supreme Court even when the High Court transfers a case from the lower court and sentences the accused to life imprisonment or 10 years imprisonment.
* Article 134A - High Court permission is mandatory to file Constitutional, Civil, Criminal appeals in the Supreme Court.

d) Special Appeals / Special Leave Petition (Article 136)

* In cases where the High Court does not provide an opportunity for appeal and does not grant permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, special appeals are attempted.
* If any legal issue is involved in the relevant cases, and similarly if the High Court takes any issue into consideration, the Supreme Court usually grants permission for special appeals.
* The Screening Committee in the Supreme Court examines and permits special appeals.
* Judgments of the following courts do not come under 'Special Appeal' under Article 136.
  1. Courts belonging to the Armed Forces (Court Martial) or
  2. There is no opportunity to approach the Supreme Court under SLP on the judgments issued by special tribunals.
Example:- In Andhra Pradesh, the Janardhan Reddy government issued GOs granting permission to private medical and engineering colleges.
Note: - The special appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court explains. * The Supreme Court admits appeals only through discretion, it is not a right of an individual.

3. Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143)

* The President of India may seek the legal advice of the Supreme Court.
* If disputes arise in the implementation of laws enacted before the Constitution came into force, the President may seek the advice of the Supreme Court.
* If advice is sought on laws before the Constitution came into force, the Supreme Court must advise the President.
* The opinion expressed by the Supreme Court is only advisory in nature.
* Therefore, there is no rule that the President must necessarily follow it.
* He may or may not follow it.

a) Constitutional Matters

* When the President seeks legal advice from the Supreme Court on constitutional matters, the Supreme Court constitutes a bench of not less than 5 judges.
* In constitutional matters, the Supreme Court must give its legal advice to the President.
* Similarly, the President, meaning the government, must also necessarily follow the advice of the Supreme Court.

b) Legislative Matters.

c) Administrative Matters -

* On the two matters mentioned above, the Supreme Court may give its legal advice or may refuse.
* Similarly, even the legal advice given by the Supreme Court, the President, meaning the Central Government, may or may not follow.
* The Supreme Court's advice is just like a judgment in a moot court.
* So far, the President has sought advice under this jurisdiction fifteen times.

Instances of the President of India seeking legal advice from the Supreme Court:-

  1. On the Delhi Administration Act - 1951
  2. Kerala Education Bill - 1958.
  3. Berubari Union - 1960
  1. 2-5-Opeons - 1963
  2. Kesavananda Bharati case for special rights in the legislature 1964.
  3. On Presidential election - 1974
  4. Special Courts Act - 1978 (Jammu and Kashmir Rehabilitation Act - 1982)
  5. Cauvery River Water Tribunal Dispute - 1992
  6. Rama Janmabhoomi – 1993.
  7. Scope of advice on appointment of Supreme Court judges - 192
  8. Gujarat Assembly Elections. - 2002.
  9. Punjab River Water Agreement - 2004
  10. Office of Profit - 2006
  11. E-Spectrum Scam - 2010.

Court of Record (Article 129)

* Article 129 explains about the Court of Record.
* As a Court of Record, the Supreme Court has two powers:
  1. The Court of Record acts as a guideline for all lower courts.
  2. For the Supreme Court to keep its judgments, proceedings and laws as authentic documents and memories for future times, it keeps records.

Power to Issue Writs

* If fundamental rights of citizens are violated, the Constitution established the Supreme Court to provide protection for them.
* To protect the fundamental rights of the victim, the Supreme Court has the power to issue writs under Article 32.
* These writs are: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto.
* The power of the Supreme Court to issue these writs comes under original jurisdiction.
* Because the affected citizen can directly approach the Supreme Court.
* No appeal is required, however, the writ jurisdiction is not exclusive to the Supreme Court.
* The High Court also has the power to issue writs for the protection of fundamental rights. That is, if fundamental rights are violated, one can directly approach either the High Court or the Supreme Court directly.
* Therefore, in federal disputes, there is a difference between the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and its jurisdiction over fundamental rights.
* In the first case, its jurisdiction can be called "exclusive".
* But in the second case, its jurisdiction can be called "concurrent". Because this jurisdiction is also with the High Court.
* In the matter of writ jurisdiction, both the Supreme Court and the High Court have jurisdiction.
* The Supreme Court can issue writs only in the matter of fundamental rights.
* It has no power in other matters, but the High Court can issue writs in matters of fundamental rights and in other matters as well.
Note:- In the matter of writs, it can be said that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is wider than the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. But Parliament can confer on the Supreme Court the power to issue writs even in other matters.

Curative Petition:-

* When review of Supreme Court judgments is not possible, if the litigant feels that they are severely prejudiced by some aspects of the judgment, they can request the Supreme Court to revise them.
* In this way, only on specifically mentioned aspects, the Supreme Court may grant some relief or may reject it.
* The necessity of this petition was recognized through the judgment given in the case of Roopa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra (2002).

Judicial Review

* Judicial review power of the judiciary is a key aspect in the Indian Constitution. When analyzing the features and powers of our judicial system, especially the special judicial review power of the higher judiciary (Supreme Court, High Court) must be clearly understood.
* There are three systems for the state, mainly legislative, executive, and judicial. (Judiciary).
* According to the principle of separation of powers, the functions of one system should not be interfered with by another system. However, judicial review power can be considered an exception to these.
* India adopted the concept of judicial review from America.
* All countries of the world, including India, have adopted judicial review power from America.
* K.M. Munshi, a member of the Constitution Drafting Committee, stated that judicial review power should be given to the judiciary to ensure that appropriate order is followed for the protection of fundamental rights.
* If central laws, state laws and statutes, ordinances and other notifications are unconstitutional, judicial review power is to strike them down by ruling them unconstitutional.
Note:- * Although the term judicial review is nowhere mentioned in our constitution, the features of judicial review are present in our constitution.

Reasons for granting judicial review power to the judiciary

  1. The responsibility to protect the supremacy of the Constitution rests with the judiciary.
  2. The responsibility of protecting fundamental rights rests with the judiciary.
  3. To resolve disputes arising in the federal system.
  4. To protect the freedom and liberty of the people.
  5. To curb the misuse of power by governments.
  6. To interpret, explain and apply the Constitution - The responsibility of doing so rests with the Supreme Court.

Marbury vs. Madison Case:-

#1803 In the United States of America, for the first time in the Supreme Court, in the case between Marbury vs. Madison, the judgment given by John Marshall laid the foundation for the concept of judicial review. Therefore, John Marshall is referred to as the "Father of Judicial Review".

Key Disputes in the Historical Evolution of Judicial Review in India

*1951 In 1951, for the first time, in the Shankari Prasad vs. Government of India case, the Supreme Court exercised judicial review power.
*1965 In 1965, in the Sajjan Singh vs. Government of Rajasthan and Golaknath vs. Government of India cases, in the Bank Nationalization Case, in the Kesavananda Bharati case, judicial review power was exercised.
*1980 In the Minerva Mills case, in the Supreme Court judgment, judicial review is the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
*In the 1980s, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, through promoting Public Interest Litigations, worked to make the judiciary play a proactive role.
* 1994 In the Chandra Kumar case, the Supreme Court once again clarified that judicial review power is an integral part of the basic structure doctrine.
* However, some aspects in the Indian Constitution are excluded from the purview of Supreme Court judicial review.
* The Supreme Court generally does not have the power to comment on the constitutional validity of issues.
* However, the US Supreme Court has the power to review any aspect of the Constitution. Therefore, in America, the judiciary has supremacy, but in India, the judiciary does not have supremacy.
* Constitutional supremacy prevails (American - what is law is - what the judges Say - what judges say is law) meaning the judiciary is supreme.

Aspects not subject to Judicial Review:-

* Salaries mentioned in the 11th Schedule.
* The Vth Schedule explains about the representation given to states by Rajya Sabhas.
* Matters related to the administration areas of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes mentioned in the 7th Schedule.
* Matters related to some tribal areas in the states of Assam, Tripura, Mizoram, Meghalaya mentioned in the VI Schedule.
* Land reforms mentioned in the 9th Schedule.
* Provision 53 - President to be the Supreme Executive Authority.
* Provision 74 (2) - Advice given by the Union Council of Ministers to the President cannot be questioned before any court.
Provision - 77 - Governance of the country is done through the President.
Provision - 82 - Reorganization of Lok Sabha constituencies in accordance with the recommendations of the Delimitation Commission.
Provision - 122 - Courts cannot inquire into the proceedings of Parliament.
Provision - 154 - Courts cannot inquire into the conduct of governance of states in the name of the Governor.
Provision - 163(1) - Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister - Advice given to the Governor in President's rule.
Provision - 166(1) - Governance is done in the name of the Governor.
Provision- 194 - Special facilities provided to members of the legislature and the House.
Provision- 212 - State Legislature proceedings cannot be questioned before a court.
Provision - 329 - Courts should not interfere after the election process has commenced.
Provision-341 - Indian Parliament laws on Scheduled Castes lists.
Provision-342 - Indian Parliament laws on Tribes and Scheduled Tribes.
Provision - 361 - Special exemptions given to President and Governors.
* Provision - 392 (2) - Matters related to taking any aspect related to the 1935 Act into the current Constitution, orders issued by the President regarding introduction in Parliament.

Opportunities for Judicial Review: -

* Provision -13 - Laws that are inconsistent with fundamental rights can be declared invalid.
* Provision - 32 - Executive branch actions inconsistent with fundamental rights can be declared unlawful.
* 7th Schedule - Disputes arising in respect of lists.
* Provision - 73 - Disputes arising in respect of the jurisdiction of the Central Government.
* Provision - 162 - Disputes arising in respect of the jurisdiction of the State Government.
* Provision - 131 - Disputes between the Center - State governments and between states.
* Provision - 132 - Supreme Court hearing constitutional appeals.
* Provision - 137 - Supreme Court reviewing its own judgments - giving new judgments.
* Provision - 147 - Interpreting, explaining, defining and applying the Constitution.
* Provision - 246 - Exceeding the legislative jurisdiction of Parliament and Legislatures.
* Provision - 248 - Matter of deciding residual powers.
* Provision - 254 - Disputes arising between the Center and States on concurrent lists.
* Provision - 324 - Disputes related to the Election Commission.
* Provision - 368 - Constitutional amendment made by Parliament.
* Provision - 352 & 356 - National Emergency, Constitutional Emergency under the article.
* Examining the ordinances issued by the President.
* Disputes arising from laws framed by governments in the context of implementing Directive Principles.
* Examining the decisions of the Union Council of Ministers.
* Disputes arising over citizenship laws framed by the Indian Parliament.

Definition of Judicial Review: -

* The most important power of the judiciary to review whether laws framed by the legislature and administrative actions of the executive branch are constitutional and to rule them invalid if they are unconstitutional is "Judicial Review" power.
* When exercising judicial review power, the judgments given by the court can be classified into two types:

a) Intra Vires: -

If the laws of Parliament and the administrative actions of the executive branch are in accordance with the Constitution, they are called 'Intra Vires'.

b) Ultra Vires: -

Laws of the legislature and administrative actions of the executive branch are called "Ultra Vires" if they are inconsistent with the Constitution.
* In India, judicial review power is moderate when compared to the United States and Britain.

a) America:-

* The judicial review power of the American Supreme Court is absolute.
* That is, the US Supreme Court has the power to judicially review laws framed by the American Congress, constitutional amendments, and similarly all administrative actions related to the executive branch of governments without any limitations.

b) Britain:-

* No court in that country has the power to subject laws framed by the British Parliament to judicial review.
* Only the administrative actions of the British government are subject to judicial review by the judiciary.
* Meaning, in Britain, the judicial review power of the judiciary is very limited.

c) India -

Although the judiciary in our country has the power to judicially review the laws of Parliament, constitutional amendments and administrative actions of the government, our judiciary's judicial review power can be said to be moderate when compared to Britain and America due to many limitations.
* In the case between Namit Sharma vs. Government of India, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the independence of the judiciary is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Judicial Activism (Judicial Activism)

* Judicial Activism (Judicial Activism) is an extension of judicial review power.
* Judicial Activism means that the judiciary uses its functions and powers more actively, dynamically, and liberally.
* If the legislative, executive and judicial branches follow the separation of powers, there is no scope for one to interfere in the functions of another.
* But in modern democratic welfare states, as the functions of those systems have expanded, it has become common for one to interfere in the functions of another.
* But according to the Constitution, all three systems have equal importance.
* This equal importance has made the following example clear.
* T.T. Krishnamachari, a member of the Constituent Assembly, keeping in view the three systems, defined the Constitution as "None of them can be an Empire within an empire".
* Judicial activism in India was less until 1980.
* Courts exercised their authority only in a few rare cases. But after 1980, judicial activism increased.
* Public Interest Litigations, which originated in America to protect social rights and bring justice to the common people, gained more public approval in Australia.
* These became widely used in India during the tenure of Justice P.N. Bhagwati, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, and Chandrachud.

When is Judicial Activism?

* Judiciary exhibits activism when the legislative and executive branches neglect or fail to perform their duties.
* If governments continue in a state where even the basic needs of the people cannot be improved due to various reasons, judicial activism manifests.
* Courts, by initiating suo moto (suo motu) cases, issue appropriate orders for the rights of the people.
* Voluntary organizations, trade unions bringing public interest cases to the attention of the High Court and Supreme Court is also making courts exhibit activism.
* Judiciary functions actively when coalition, weak and unstable governments are in power.

Judicial Activism - Necessity: -

* To provide justice to socially, economically, politically, and culturally backward sections.
* Resolution of problems arising in the Indian federal system.
* To make justice accessible to the common public.
* Helps in achieving constitutional goals and objectives.
* To curb abuse of power.
* To achieve social and economic development.
* Protection of fundamental, social and human rights.
* Conservation of forests, rivers, fauna and environment.
* To establish fair governance and accountability and transparency in administration.
* To provide justice to marginalized sections and sections subjected to discrimination.

Forms of Activism

Public Interest Litigation: -

* To approach ordinary courts, only a party to the dispute has the right. This is called locus standi.
* After 1980, the Supreme Court initiated a new era.
* The Supreme Court said that even persons not related to the disputes can seek court intervention.
* In various cases like poverty, helplessness, lack of awareness, third parties in the form of Public Interest Litigation for those who cannot approach the court.
* It stated that the Supreme Court and High Courts can be approached on behalf of the victim. This is called Public Interest Litigation (PIL). This is also called Social Action Litigation.
* Recently, 'Public Interest Litigations' is the most popular topic in discussions taken up by the judiciary for the protection of rights.
* The concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) originated in America for the first time.
* In India, PILs gained more popularity during the tenure of Justice P.N. Bhagwati (1980s).

Plea Bargaining (Plea Bargaining)

* If the accused confesses to the crime, the court may stop the trial and impose a lesser sentence on the accused.
* This has been implemented since 2006.
* Cases are resolved quickly through this, however, this facility does not apply to all crimes.
* Individuals facing charges in various cases confessing their crime and cooperating with the judicial inquiry.
The opportunity provided by the investigating officer to reduce the sentence is called "Plea Bargaining". In this regard, bargaining can be done on the charges.
* Bargaining (negotiating) can be requested on the sentence. In this regard, this opportunity depends on the Public Prosecutor.
* Through judicial activism, the scope of Fundamental Rights has been expanded as per Article 21.
* For example, Right to life means Right to live with basic human dignity.
* Making it the government's responsibility to provide free compulsory education to children up to 14 years of age, and including it in Article 21(A).
* In this way, free legal advice, right to personal liberty etc. were brought into Fundamental Rights by the judiciary through activism.
* The basic doctrine of the Constitution, Judicial Activism, for example, striking down the 99th Constitutional Amendment can be called the pinnacle of judicial activism.
* The role of the judiciary in protecting environmental rights is crucial.
* Moving about 300 companies away from Agra to Taj Mahal was also made possible due to judicial activism.

Criticism

* There is criticism that judges are overstepping their jurisdiction in the name of judicial activism.
* Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Madhur, in a judgment, stated that orders are being issued on unrelated matters.
* Similarly, judges like Justice KG Balakrishnan are supporting judicial activism.
* If the functioning of the legislative and executive branches is not good, even a common person approaches the court. Hence it is called judicial activism.
* Narco analysis --- The court has ruled that it is against personal liberty and the right to life.
* Judicial activism has some limitations.
* According to the Constitution, the judiciary is not supreme. Only the Constitution is supreme.
* The judiciary should act as a catalyst and ensure that the legislative and executive branches function.

Key Disputes Related to Judicial Activism

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India

* In the case that occurred, while ruling, the Supreme Court, in protecting fundamental rights, mentioned that for the protection of rights not only to authoritative bodies within the jurisdiction of the Indian state but also to private organizations, the court issues orders, which is noteworthy.

Laxmikant Pandey vs. Government of India

* In the case that happened, while ruling, the Supreme Court stated that in the context of Indian children being adopted by foreign parents, the adoption process should take place only in a manner that does not violate the constitutional and statutory rights of the children.
* For this, the government should formulate some guidelines.
* Justice Bhagwati bench ruled that it should be ensured that they are strictly implemented.

Battellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation

* The poor living on footpaths should be evicted after giving notice in advance and the government should arrange for their accommodation.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India

* In many parts of the country, to curb bonded labor and bondage that are still practiced today, guiding principles were issued on the steps that the central and state governments should take.

Common Cause vs. Union of India (Satish Sharma Case)

* The Supreme Court stated that Satish Sharma, who worked as the Minister of Petroleum, misused his authority and allocated gas agencies and petrol bunks to the relatives of the officials working under him.
* The Supreme Court condemned Satish Varma for allocating to his secretary's wife, car driver's mother and Additional Private Secretary's wife.

D.K. Basu vs. Government of India (Lock-up Death Case)

* On the petition filed by D.K. Basu on the police behavior towards detainees and suspects in lock-ups in various states of our country, the Supreme Court, after examining, severely criticized the attitude of the police.
* The court ordered the government to bring about radical changes in police attitude and bring reforms in work practices.

Peoples Union for Democratic Rights vs. Government of India

* In the case that happened, while ruling, the Supreme Court stated that if workers working in Asiad construction are not paid wages as per the Minimum Wages Act, it should be considered as harassment.
* Meaning, their fundamental rights are violated. Therefore, the Supreme Court stated that minimum wages should be paid.

Vineet Narain vs. Government of India

* The Supreme Court rejected the argument that cases should not be filed based on mere writings in a diary, without evidence.
* In the Jain Hawala scam, the Supreme Court sensationalized that cases can be registered against politicians and other dignitaries mentioned in the diary of Jain brothers.

S.P. Gupta vs. Government of India (1982)

* The case that happened helped in contemplating the procedure and method to be followed in the appointment of Supreme Court and High Court judges.

Mayawati Government in Uttar Pradesh: -

* When the 3 new districts formed by the 6 state government was faulted, the 6 state High Court, faulting the state High Court, ruled that the state government does not have the power to change the state territory, which the High Court quashed.
* When the Mayawati government appealed to the Supreme Court against the judgment given by the High Court, the Supreme Court quashed the judgment given by the Allahabad High Court and upheld the formation of the new districts formed by the Mayawati government.

M.C. Mehta vs. Government of India: -

* It happened while the Supreme Court ruled mentioning that 18 types of industries spreading pollution around the Taj Mahal should be closed immediately.

A.B.S.K. Sangh vs. Government of India: -

* According to the judgment given by Justice Krishna Iyer in the case that happened, not only recognized unions but also unrecognized unions can file a petition in court under Article 226 for the protection of the interests of the working class.

Parmanand Katara vs. Government of India: -

* The Supreme Court of India ruled that while providing primary medical care to those injured in clashes or accidents, government or private medical institutions should prioritize saving their lives without waiting for compliance with legal formalities.

Supreme Court - Other Aspects

* Provision - 135 - The current Supreme Court exercises all the powers previously exercised by the Federal Court.
* Provision - 137 - Supreme Court reviewing its own judgments - revoking these judgments and giving new judgments.
* Provision - 138 - Parliament may extend the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court through an Act.
* Provision - 139 - Parliament may confer powers on the Supreme Court to issue writs even on other matters related to fundamental rights.
* Provision - 140 - If it is necessary to effectively exercise the powers of the Supreme Court, Parliament may enact appropriate laws if the Parliament transfers other powers to the Supreme Court.
* Provision - 141 - All courts in the country must necessarily follow the judgments and advice given by the Supreme Court.
* Provision - 142 - The Central Government has the responsibility to take discussions in accordance with the judgments given by the Supreme Court.
  1. Parliament should formulate rules and procedures related to them.
  2. Until then, actions should be taken in the manner directed by the President through orders.
* Provision - 144 - All authorities, civil and criminal courts in the country should act in aid of the Supreme Court.
* Provision - 145 - Other courts in the country must necessarily follow and implement the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court on the procedures to be followed and implemented in the administration of justice and court procedures in the country.
* Provision - 146 - The Supreme Court appoints the staff working in the Supreme Court.
* Provision - 147 - The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Indian Constitution and explain the Constitution.

Supreme Court Chief Justices:-

  1. Harilal J. Kania - 1950-1951
  2. M. Patanjali Sastri - 1951-1954.
  3. M.C. Mahajan - 1954-1954.
  4. B.K. Mukherjea - 1954-1956.
  5. S.R. Das - 1956-1959.
  6. B.P. Sinha - 1959-1964
  7. P.B. Gajendragadkar - 1964 - 1966.
  8. A.K. Sarkar - 1966 - 1966
  9. K. Subba Rao - 1966-1967
  1. K.N. Wanchoo - 1967-1967.
  2. M. Hidayatullah - 1968-1970.
  3. J.C. Shah - 1970-1971.
  4. S.M. Sikri - 1971-1973.
  5. A.N. Ray - 1973-1977.
  6. M.H. Beg - 1977-1978.
  7. Y.V. Chandrachud - 1978-1985.
  8. P.N. Bhagwati - 1985-1986.
  9. R.S. Pathak - 1986-1989.
  10. E.S. Venkataramaiah - 1989 - 1989.
  11. S. Mukherji - 1989-1990
  12. Ranganath Misra - 1990-1991
  13. K.N. Singh - 1991-1991
  14. M.H. Kania - 1991-1992
  15. L.M. Sharma - 1992-1993.
  16. M.S. Venkatachaliah - 1993-1994.
  17. A.M. Ahmadi - 1994-1997
  18. J.S. Verma - 1997-1998.
  19. M.M. Punchhi - 1998-1998
  20. A.S. Anand - 1998-2001
  21. S.P. Bharucha - 2001-2002.
  22. B.N. Kirpal - 2002-2002.
  23. G.B. Pattanaik - 2002-2002.
  24. V.N. Khare - 2002-2004.
  1. N. Rajendra Babu - 2004-2004
  2. R.C. Lahoti - 2004-2005
  3. Y.K. Sabharwal - 2005-2007
  4. K.G. Balakrishnan (Dalit) - 2007-2010.
  5. Sarosh Homi Kapadia - 12.5.2010 to 28.9.2012.
  6. Altamas Kabir - 29.9.2012 to 18.7.2013.
  7. P. Sathasivam - 19.7.2013 to 26.4.2014.
  8. Rajendra Mal Lodha - 27.4.2014 to 27.9.2014.
  9. H.L. Dattu - 28.9.2014 to 2.11.2015.
  10. T.S. Thakur - 3.12.2015 to 2016.
  11. Jagdish Khehar - 01.01.2017 to 27 Aug 2017.
  12. Dipak Misra - 28 Aug 2017- 2018 Oct 2.
  13. Ranjan Gogoi - 2018 October 3 onwards
  14. Sharad Arvind Bobde - 18 November 2019 to April 2021
  15. N.V. Ramana - 24 April 2021- 26 Aug 2022.
  16. U.U. Lalit - 27 August 2022- 8 November 2022.
  17. D.Y. Chandrachud - 9 November 2022 - Incumbent.

Supreme Court - Some Highlights

* First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - Harilal J. Kania
* Current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - D.Y. Chandrachud.
* Chief Justice who served for the longest period - Y.V. Chandrachud (1978-1985)
* Chief Justice who served for the shortest period - K.N. Singh (18 days)
* First woman judge in the Supreme Court - Fatima Beevi (1989-1992)
* First Dalit Chief Justice in the Supreme Court - K.G. Balakrishnan (2007-2010)
* S.C. Chief Justice when the S.R. Bommai case judgment was given - Justice Venkatachaliah.
* Chief Justice during the Golaknath case - Koka Subba Rao.
* Chief Justice during the Kesavananda Bharati case - S.N. Sikri.
* In 1993, his judgment initiated the Collegium system - Justice Verma.
* Postal Department Special Pin Code 1102018 allotted to the Supreme Court.
* V.R. Krishna Iyer, the only Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer who served as a Supreme Court Judge (1973-1980) and as a Jail Superintendent (1957–1959) in the later period.

Comparison between Indian Supreme Court and American Supreme Court

Indian Supreme Court American Supreme Court.
1. Its original jurisdiction applies only to federal disputes 1. Its original jurisdiction applies to federal disputes, naval forces, maritime forces and ambassadors as well
2. In its appellate jurisdiction, constitutional and criminal cases are included. 2. In its appellate jurisdiction, only constitutional cases are included
3. It has advisory jurisdiction 3. It has no advisory jurisdiction.
4. Its power of judicial review is limited. 4. Its power of judicial review is extensive.
5. It protects civil rights according to the procedure prescribed by law 5. It protects civil rights according to the process of enforcement of law
6. Its jurisdiction and powers are limited as defined in the Constitution. Parliament can increase 6. Its jurisdiction and powers are limited as defined in the Constitution. Parliament cannot increase
7. Due to the existence of a comprehensive judicial system in our system, the Supreme Court has control over the High Courts. 7. Due to the judiciary being two-tiered, this Supreme Court does not have control over the High Courts.

Supreme Court - Women Judges

S.No Name Tenure
1. M. Fathima Beevi 1989-1992.
2. Sujata V. Manohar 1994-1999.
3. Rooma Pal 2000-2006.
4. Gyan Sudha Misra 2010-2014.
5. Ranjan Prakash Desai 2011-2014
6. R. Banumathi 2014-2020
7. Indu Malhotra 2018-2021
8. Indira Banerjee 2018-2022
9. Hima Kohli 2021-2024
10. Bela Trivedi 2021-2025
11. B.V. Nagarathna 2021-2027.

Cases Heard for the Longest Duration in the Supreme Court:

First Case - Kesavananda Bharati Case - ÷

* Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) related to the management of religious institutions was the first time a 13-judge bench was constituted in the Supreme Court.
* In this case, the then Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, along with 7 judges, delivered the judgment with a majority.
* The first case in the history of the Supreme Court from its inception in 1950 that lasted for the longest duration was the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973.
* This case was registered on 31 October 1972 and concluded on 23 March 1973. That is, the case was heard for a total of 68 days.

Second Case – Ayodhya Case:

* A 5-judge bench heard the case continuously from 6 August 2019 to 16 October 2019, i.e., for a total of 40 days.

Third Case - Aadhaar Case:

* A 5-judge bench heard the case continuously from 17 January 2018 to 10 May 2018, i.e., for a total of 38 days.
By at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)