SUPREME COURT

                                         

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of India is the highest court in the country. It is the highest court of appeal and the guardian of the Indian Constitution. Articles 124 to 147 in Part V of the Indian Constitution deal with the provisions related to the Supreme Court of India. The constitutional provisions mentioned under these articles deal with the organization, independence, jurisdiction, powers, and procedures of the SC.

 

Inspired by the Government of India Act of 1935, the Indian Constitution has established an integrated judicial system with a three-tier structure:

• The Supreme Court
• The High Courts
• The Subordinate Courts (District Courts, and other Lower Courts)

 

Composition of Judges

The Supreme Court’s original strength was eight, including the Chief Justice. However, Article 124 of the Indian Constitution empowers Parliament to increase or decrease the number of Supreme Court judges. As a result, Parliament passed several Acts to increase the number of other Supreme Court judges. The Supreme Court currently consists of 34 judges, including the Chief Justice.

 

Appointment of Judges

The judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President. The CJI 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 the President after consultation with the CJI and such other judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts as he deems necessary. The consultation with the chief justice is obligatory in the case of appointment of a judge other than Chief justice.

Qualifications

Article 124(3) states that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court unless he is a citizen of India and:

·       They must have served as judges in a high court for at least five years or consecutively in two or more high courts.

·       They must have practised as a lawyer in a High Court for at least ten years or in two or more High Courts consecutively.

·       Alternatively, they can be considered a distinguished legal expert in the opinion of the President.

Oath and Affirmations of Judges of Supreme Court

The Chief Justice of India and the Judges make and subscribe to an oath or affirmation before the President or some person appointed by him for this purpose.

In his/her oath, he/she swears:

• to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India.
• to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India.
• to duly and faithfully and to the best of his ability, knowledge, and judgment perform the duties of the office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.
• 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:

o   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.

o   He can resign his office by writing to the President.

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

§  No judge of the Supreme Court has been impeached so far.

 

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.

 

Jurisdiction and Powers of Supreme Court

(A) Original Jurisdiction

Under Article 131 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in the following cases:

• Between the Center and one or more states; or
• Between the Center and one or more states on one side and one or more other states on the other side; or
• Between two or more states

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction allows it to hear appeals from High Court judgments involving significant constitutional or legal questions (Articles 132 and 133). In criminal cases, it can review High Court decisions, especially where death sentences are involved (Article 134).

Additionally, the Court has the discretion to grant special leave to appeal from any court or tribunal except in matters related to the Armed Forces (Article 136).

(C) Advisory Jurisdiction

(Article 143): The President can ask the Supreme Court for advice on important legal or factual matters of public interest or issues related to pre-constitutional agreements or treaties.

(D) Writ Jurisdiction (Article 32): The Supreme Court has the power to issue directions, orders, or writs, including writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to enforce fundamental rights. The primary function of the writ jurisdiction is to provide a remedy for individuals whose fundamental rights have been violated. It's a direct remedy, allowing individuals to approach the Supreme Court without first having to exhaust other legal avenues.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Court of Record

Article 129 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950 confers the powers pertaining to be the Court of Record to the Supreme Court of India and High Courts as such, respectively. This legal designation imparts special powers and privileges to these courts, empowering them to maintain records, punish for contempt, and ensure the preservation of judicial authority. The judgements, proceedings and acts of the Supreme Court are recorded for perpetual memory and testimony. These records are admitted to be of evidentiary value and cannot be questioned when produced before any court.

Punish For Contempt

Contempt of court is a serious legal offense that can be committed against the Supreme Court of India. It refers to any act that undermines the court's authority, interferes with its proceedings, or obstructs the administration of justice. The Supreme Court has the power to punish for contempt, both civil and criminal, as outlined in the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Examples of Contempt:

o   Disobeying a court order:

Failing to comply with a court's judgment or decree constitutes civil contempt.

o   Publicly criticizing the court in a way that undermines its authority:

Making statements that are intended to lower the court's reputation or create a perception of bias can be considered criminal contempt.

o   Interfering with witnesses or jurors:

Attempting to influence or intimidate witnesses or jurors during a trial can be seen as criminal contempt.

Guardian of the Constitution

The Supreme Court of India is indeed referred to as the guardian of the Constitution. It is the most important characteristic of the Supreme Court, setting it apart as the defender of the Constitution is its independence from other organs of government. As societies evolve and new problems arise, the Supreme Court must continue to interpret and apply the Constitution in ways that promote justice, equity, and liberty for all.

As the guardian of the Constitution it is renders the follows responsibilities:

Judicial Review

One of the Supreme Court’s most significant responsibilities is judicial review, or the capacity to determine whether laws and executive actions are constitutional. Through judicial review, the Court ensures that no law or policy departs from essential constitutional principles. If the Court finds that such laws or actions are unconstitutional, it has the power to overturn them.

Indian Constitution offers a rather wide judicial review covering almost all aspects of governance, including laws made by the legislature, executive orders, and constitutional amendments. Such a judicial review applies to ordinary laws to ensure they are not unconstitutional in the way they may infringe upon rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Similarly, the Court may review actions of the executive to check whether they fall within the limits of legality or run against constitutional rights. The one very important feature of judicial review that grants the power to review constitutional amendments to the judiciary, thus keeping the integrity of the Constitution, is potentially challenging for the courts to implement.

Protection of Fundamental Rights

The Constitution often shields its citizens from the fundamental rights of equality, freedom of expression, and protection against discrimination. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter when these rights are in question. By reading the Constitution in a dynamic and progressive manner, the Court has regularly expanded the scope of fundamental rights, ensuring their validity in changing social and economic contexts.

For instance, the writ of habeas corpus ensures that no person is wrongfully detained and that the state should have reasons to detail any person. This writ safeguards Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the right to life and personal liberty. Similarly, the writ of mandamus makes a public authority do a duty it fails to do, thereby making governance accountable. Writs of certiorari and prohibition are applied with the objective that any lower court or tribunal should not act in excess of its jurisdiction. Quo warranto challenges to a person so holding the office of the public. In this respect, the Supreme Court takes care that no fundamental right of the citizen is violated by any action on the part of the state or any institution of the state through these very writs.

The landmark cases also include Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, 1997. It is a case relating to sexual harassment at work and studied in relation by the Supreme Court. The Court had given guidelines for preventing sexual harassment by holding the right to a safe working environment implicit in Articles 14, 15, and 21.

Supreme Court’s Role in Constitutional Amendments and Interpretation

The Supreme Court of India plays a very crucial role in the interpretation of the Constitution, especially the ambiguities or ‘evolving provisions,’ so the Constitution continues to keep pace with changing socio-political contexts. The Constitution is a living document; the Court’s interpretations update it while presenting it as applicable to new challenges and maintaining its core principles. Interpretations by judgments in a dynamic and purposive manner have expanded the scope of many constitutional provisions.

The Supreme Court as the Final Arbiter in Federal Disputes

The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial authority, which provides an avenue for appeal in disputes between the central government and the states or between two different states, and thus plays a very crucial role in maintaining the balance of the federation in governing the country. As under Article 131 of the Constitution, disputes between two or more states or between a state and the Union are within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, such cases can be brought directly before the Supreme Court without any previous tranching down of the cases at the lower courts. In a federal system such as that of India, such jurisdiction is essential to ensure harmony between levels of the state or avoid deadlocks between them.

Conclusion

Thus, in a nutshell, the Supreme Court of India plays a very fundamental role as the defender of the Constitution to establish respect for the rights of its citizens, maintain the balance of the power dividing the branches of the government, and act upon justice. It shields fundamental rights through interpretations of the Constitution and plays an important checking role against the two other branches: the executive and the legislature. But exercising its jurisdiction over constitutional matters and resolving disputes between the center and states, the Supreme Court has not only prescribed the federal structure but made governmental authorities accountable to a degree also. Its landmark judgments themselves have played a very pivotal role in shaping the constitutional future of India wherein it held that the Constitution rules supreme and anchored the very notion of the rule of law.