The Supreme Court of India

The Indian Constitution provides for an integrated judicial system. Integrated judiciary means federal (central) as well as state laws are enforced by the same court or a hierarchy of courts. In this hierarchy, the Supreme Court sits at the top. Below it is the High Court (at the state level), and below the High Court are the subordinate courts (district courts and other lower courts). The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in India. It is a protector of the Fundamental Rights and ensures their enforcement (Article 32). It also has the power to review laws so that they do not violate the Constitution. It also has some advisory and supervisory roles. Hence, the Supreme Court of India is considered to be more powerful than the American Supreme Court and one of the most powerful Supreme Courts in the world.

The integrated judicial system, or single system of courts is borrowed from the Government of India Act of 1935. It established the Federal Court of India, which is the predecessor of the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court is more powerful than its predecessor because it is the final court of appeal in the country. This power of hearing appeals was previously held by the British privy council. After independence, the Supreme Court was established on January 28, 1948. Part V of the Constitution contains provisions related to the Supreme Court (Articles 124 to 147).

In India, the judiciary is not only supposed to adjudicate disputes between individuals but also decide on disputes between a state and the centre. In addition to this, it is the final interpreter of the Constitution. So it is of paramount importance that it is free from any political interference. Hence, the independence of the judiciary is very important for smooth functioning of our democracy.

The Constitution maker envisaged a system of government where there is a separation of power between various organs of the government. But it is not 'watertight' like in the United States. The judiciary has the power to review the laws made by the legislatures to ensure their compliance with Constitutional principles.

In some cases, the judiciary uses its power to fill gaps in law. For example, the Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India Case, 2023, provided for the process of appointment for Chief Election Commissioner until the Parliament provided an alternative for it. Therefore, some people say that this is judicial activism, and the judiciary is going beyond its constitutional mandate. Hence, there is a need to exercise great restraint by the judiciary, so that the principle of 'checks and balances' is not violated.

34 Judges Including 1 Chief Justice of India.

• According to the Constitution, Parliament can increase the number of judges by enacting a law to that effect.
• Therefore, the Parliament enacted the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019, which increased the number of judges in the Supreme Court to thirty-four (Chief Justice of India and thirty-three judges). This act has been amended six times to increase the strength of the court.

• Appointment of Judges: According to Article 124(2) of the Constitution, the President shall appoint the judges of the Supreme Court. The President shall consult the Chief Justice and such other judges of the Supreme Court and high courts as he deems necessary. In this case, consultation with the Chief Justice is necessary.
• Should the President Consult the Judiciary?: There has been controversy over the years due to different interpretations of the term 'consultation'. Therefore, the process of appointing judges has evolved over the years according to various judgments of the Supreme Court.
  • First Judges Case (1982): In the SP Gupta vs. Union of India case, the Supreme Court opined that consultation means discussion and mere exchange of views. Therefore, the CJI's recommendation is not binding for the appointment of judges.
  • Second Judges Case (1993): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the advice tendered by the CJI with regards to appointment is binding on the President. That is, 'consultation' means concurrence. But to tender such advice, the CJI shall consult two senior-most judges.
  • Third Judges Case (1998): In this landmark judgement, the Court held that CJI shall tender his advice after consulting a collegium of four senior-most judges.
  • NJAC case (2015): The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2014 introduced a new body called National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which replaced the collegium system. But the Supreme Court opined that this system interferes with the independence of the judiciary and declared this Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional and void. Therefore, the collegium system is still in operation. Sometimes, this case is also referred to as the Fourth Judges case.

• Independent Appointment Process: Judges are appointed by the President after consultation with the judiciary (Collegium) itself. Also the advice of collegium is binding on the President. Hence no absolute discretion of the executive which ensures there is no political interference.
• Security of Tenure: Only the President can remove a judge from office in the manner and on the grounds mentioned in the Constitution. Hence, there is security of tenure.
• Financial Security: Expenses (salaries, allowances, and pensions) are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India (non votable by the Parliament).
• No Discussion in Parliament: The conduct of judges of the Supreme Court cannot be discussed in Parliament (or in state legislatures) except when there is an impeachment motion in consideration.
• Prohibition of Bias: Retired justices of the Supreme Court are prohibited from practising before any court or any authority.
• Independence of Judiciary:
  • Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court cannot be curtailed by the Parliament (although it can be extended).
  • Article 50 requires separation of judiciary from the executive and legislature.
  • Freedom to appoint staff.

Since its establishment, the Supreme Court has stood as a defender of the Constitution and protector of the rights of citizens. Over the years, the Supreme Court has delivered landmark judgements that have maintained the balance of power between various organs of the polity. In the landmark judgement of Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court proposed a unique and new concept of 'basic structure' of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has held that the basic structure of the Constitution must not be disturbed. This doctrine has essentially allowed the Supreme Court to validate the laws and executive orders of governments vis-a-vis constitutional morality.

But there are also a few issues that need attention for the better functioning of the judiciary. Such as the huge pendency of cases, perception of judicial activism, lack of transparency, judicial accountability, tussle between the executive and the Supreme Court regarding judicial appointments, and many other issues. Hence, there should be a collective effort from all the organs of the polity to resolve the issues plaguing the judiciary so that there is speedy and effective delivery of justice.