Supreme Court & Judicial Review
Concepts (23)
India's Supreme Court, established by Article 124, is the apex judicial body. It has extensive original, appellate, and advisory jurisdictions, acting as the final interpreter of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court of India stands as the apex judicial body, embodying an integrated judicial system. Established under Article 124 of the Constitution, it serves not only as a federal court, resolving disputes between the Union and states, but also as the final court of appeal, the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, and the guarantor of fundamental rights. Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar aptly noted its extensive powers, surpassing many other Supreme Courts globally.
Composition: As per Article 124(1), the Supreme Court consists of a Chief Justice of India (CJI) and, currently, not more than 33 other judges (Parliament increased the strength from 30 to 33 in 2019 via the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act). Judges are appointed by the President after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as deemed necessary, with the CJI's opinion being paramount in the appointment of other judges (Collegium system). To be eligible, a person must be a citizen of India and either a High Court judge for at least five years, an advocate of a High Court for at least ten years, or a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President. Judges hold office until they attain the age of 65 years and can be removed only through a complex impeachment process by Parliament for proven misbehaviour or incapacity.
Jurisdiction and Powers: The Supreme Court's vast jurisdiction is broadly classified into:
- Original Jurisdiction (Article 131): Deals with disputes between the Centre and states, or between states. This is an exclusive original jurisdiction, meaning no other court can entertain such disputes.
- Writ Jurisdiction (Article 32): Empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo-Warranto) for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This is a concurrent jurisdiction with High Courts (Article 226).
- Appellate Jurisdiction (Articles 132, 133, 134, 136): Hears appeals against judgments of High Courts in constitutional, civil, and criminal matters. Article 136 grants special leave to appeal from any court or tribunal (except military tribunals).
- Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143): The President can seek the Supreme Court's opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance.
- Court of Record (Article 129): Its proceedings and judgments are recorded for perpetual memory and testimony, and it has the power to punish for contempt of itself.
- Judicial Review: The power to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders.
Exam Angle: For Prelims, focus on specific article numbers (e.g., 124 for composition, 131 for original, 32 for writ, 143 for advisory), the distinction between exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction, and the current judge strength. For Mains, analyze the Supreme Court's role in upholding federalism, protecting fundamental rights, and its evolving interpretation of the Constitution (e.g., basic structure doctrine), discussing judicial activism vs. judicial restraint.
The Supreme Court of India, established on January 28, 1950, succeeded the Federal Court of India and replaced the British Privy Council as the highest court of appeal. Its unique position stems from its multifaceted role as a federal court, the final court of appeal, and the guardian of the Constitution and fundamental rights, making it arguably one of the most powerful apex courts globally.
Composition and Appointment: Article 124 outlines the composition, initially set at a Chief Justice and seven other judges. Parliament holds the power to increase this number, which it has done periodically, reaching the current strength of 34 judges (CJI + 33 other judges) following the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019. The appointment process, initially involving presidential consultation, evolved significantly through a series of judgments (First, Second, and Third Judges Cases) to establish the 'Collegium System.' Under this system, the CJI and a collegium of the four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court recommend appointments and transfers. This system, while ensuring judicial independence, has faced criticism regarding transparency and accountability, leading to the attempt to replace it with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, which was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 as unconstitutional, reaffirming the Collegium's primacy.
Detailed Jurisdictions:
- Original Jurisdiction (Article 131): This is the bedrock of the Supreme Court's federal character. It exclusively handles disputes between the Union and one or more states, or between two or more states. This ensures that such high-stakes federal disputes are resolved by the highest judicial authority, maintaining the delicate balance of power within the Indian federation. Examples include disputes over river water sharing or financial allocations between states and the Centre. It's crucial to distinguish this exclusive original jurisdiction from the concurrent original jurisdiction under Article 32.
- Writ Jurisdiction (Article 32): This grants individuals the right to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their Fundamental Rights. The Court can issue five types of writs. While powerful, its writ jurisdiction is narrower than that of High Courts (Article 226), which can issue writs not only for Fundamental Rights but also for 'any other purpose,' implying enforcement of legal rights. This difference highlights the High Courts' broader role in general legal enforcement at the state level.
- Appellate Jurisdiction (Articles 132, 133, 134, 136): This is the most frequently invoked jurisdiction. It allows appeals from High Court judgments in:
- Constitutional Cases (Article 132): If a case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.
- Civil Cases (Article 133): If a substantial question of law of general importance is involved and the High Court certifies that the matter needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.
- Criminal Cases (Article 134): In specific scenarios, such as when a High Court has reversed an acquittal and sentenced the accused to death, or withdrawn a case from a subordinate court and convicted the accused to death.
- Special Leave Petition (SLP) (Article 136): This is a highly discretionary power, allowing the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India (except military tribunals). This broad power makes the Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter in virtually any legal matter.
- Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143): The President can refer two types of matters to the Supreme Court for its opinion: (a) any question of law or fact of public importance (the Court may give its opinion), and (b) any dispute arising out of any pre-Constitution treaty, agreement, etc. (the Court must give its opinion). The Supreme Court's opinion in either case is not binding on the President, though it carries significant weight.
Comparison with US Supreme Court: The Indian Supreme Court operates within an integrated judicial system, where it stands at the apex, overseeing High Courts and subordinate courts. This contrasts sharply with the dual judicial system of the United States, where federal and state courts operate largely independently. Furthermore, the scope of judicial review in India, while wide, traditionally adheres to 'procedure established by law' (though the 'due process of law' concept has been increasingly read into Article 21), whereas the US Supreme Court explicitly follows 'due process of law,' granting it a broader power to evaluate the fairness of laws. The Indian Supreme Court also possesses advisory jurisdiction, which the US Supreme Court lacks.
Mains Essay Angles: The Supreme Court's role in shaping Indian polity is immense. Essays can explore its function as a guardian of the Constitution (e.g., through the Basic Structure Doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973), its impact on federalism (resolving inter-state disputes, interpreting Centre-state relations), the debate between judicial activism and judicial restraint (e.g., public interest litigations, environmental jurisprudence), and challenges to judicial independence and accountability (e.g., the Collegium system, judicial appointments, transparency). Recent developments include the increasing backlog of cases, the debate over a regional bench for the Supreme Court, and the use of technology for judicial proceedings, all of which impact its functioning and accessibility.
Judicial Review empowers courts to examine legislative/executive actions for constitutionality, while PIL expands access to justice for public causes, both upholding the Constitution and protecting ri
Definition
Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and State governments. If found violative of the Constitution (ultra vires), they can be declared illegal, unconstitutional, and invalid (null and void) by the judiciary, rendering them unenforceable.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a mechanism through which any public-spirited citizen or organisation can approach the court on behalf of a section of the public or the public at large, whose rights are being violated, or who cannot approach the court themselves due to socio-economic disadvantages. It emerged as a manifestation of judicial activism, relaxing the traditional rule of locus standi.
Key Facts
- Judicial Review:
- Though the phrase 'Judicial Review' is not explicitly mentioned, its power is implicitly and explicitly conferred by several constitutional provisions.
- It is considered a part of the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution (Minerva Mills case, 1980), meaning it cannot be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment.
- Justice Syed Shah Mohamed Quadri classified judicial review into three categories: constitutional amendments, legislation (Parliament, State Legislatures, subordinate legislation), and administrative action.
- Importance: Upholds the supremacy of the Constitution, maintains federal equilibrium, and protects the Fundamental Rights of citizens.
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
- Emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s, primarily through the efforts of Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer.
- It is a direct outcome and the most popular form of judicial activism, where the judiciary takes a proactive role in addressing social issues.
- Relaxes the traditional rule of locus standi, allowing any public-spirited individual or organisation to file a petition.
Mechanism/Framework
- Judicial Review:
- Constitutional Provisions:
- Article 13: Declares laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights as null and void.
- Article 32: Guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and empowers it to issue writs.
- Article 131: Original jurisdiction in Centre-State disputes.
- Articles 132, 133, 134: Appellate jurisdiction in constitutional, civil, and criminal cases.
- Article 136: Special Leave Petition (SLP) power to appeal from any court/tribunal.
- Article 143: Advisory jurisdiction (President seeks SC opinion).
- Article 226 & 227: Confer similar powers on High Courts.
- Process: A law or executive action is challenged in the Supreme Court or High Court. The court examines it against constitutional provisions, including Fundamental Rights, DPSP, and the Basic Structure. If found unconstitutional, it is struck down.
- Constitutional Provisions:
- PIL:
- Process: A letter, postcard, or formal petition can be filed in the Supreme Court (Article 32) or High Courts (Article 226) by any person or group on behalf of the public interest. The court then takes cognisance and proceeds to hear the matter, often appointing commissions to investigate or issuing directions to the executive.
Exam Angle
For Prelims, focus on specific Articles (13, 32, 226), landmark cases (Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills, NJAC), and the core definitions. For Mains, analytical depth is key, discussing the significance of JR and PIL in upholding constitutionalism, protecting rights, maintaining federal balance, and the debates surrounding judicial activism and restraint. Link these concepts to governance, accountability, and the separation of powers.
Analysis
Judicial Review serves as the bedrock of constitutionalism in India, ensuring that the legislative and executive branches operate within their prescribed constitutional limits. It is the primary instrument through which the judiciary acts as the 'guardian of the Constitution' and the 'protector of Fundamental Rights'. The power of judicial review reinforces the principle of limited government and the rule of law. Its evolution, particularly post-independence, has seen the Supreme Court assert its authority, notably in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), where it propounded the 'Basic Structure Doctrine'. This doctrine posits that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not absolute and cannot alter the fundamental features of the Constitution, thereby placing an inherent limit on legislative sovereignty and fortifying judicial review.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) represents a revolutionary shift in the Indian legal landscape, democratising access to justice. Born out of judicial activism, PIL emerged to address the systemic failures in delivering justice to the marginalised and vulnerable sections of society. By relaxing the traditional locus standi requirement, it allowed courts to take cognisance of issues affecting public interest, even based on letters or newspaper reports. While PIL has been instrumental in securing environmental protection (e.g., M.C. Mehta cases), prison reforms (e.g., Hussainara Khatoon case, 1979), and the rights of child labourers, it has also faced criticism for potential judicial overreach. Critics argue that the judiciary sometimes ventures into policy-making, blurring the lines of separation of powers and potentially leading to 'judicial populism' or 'private interest litigation' (PILs filed for personal gain or vendetta).
Judicial Activism is often seen as the engine driving PIL. It is a proactive approach by the judiciary to interpret the Constitution and laws in a manner that expands rights, fills legislative gaps, or ensures social justice, sometimes even 'legislating' through judicial pronouncements. While essential for a dynamic constitution and responsive governance, unchecked activism can undermine legislative authority and accountability. The distinction between judicial review (the power) and judicial activism (the manner of exercising that power) is crucial. Judicial review is a constitutional mandate; judicial activism is a judicial philosophy or approach.
Curative Petition and Review Petition are specific mechanisms within the ambit of judicial review. A Review Petition (Article 137) allows the Supreme Court to review its own judgment or order. It must be filed within 30 days of the judgment and is heard by the same bench, if possible, on limited grounds like error apparent on the face of the record. A Curative Petition, evolved in the Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) case, is the last judicial resort available after a review petition is dismissed. It is heard by the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the impugned judgment, only on very limited grounds to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Comparison Table
| Feature | Judicial Review | Public Interest Litigation (PIL) | Judicial Activism |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature | Constitutional power of courts | Procedural innovation for access to justice | Proactive judicial philosophy/approach |
| Purpose | Uphold constitutional supremacy, check executive/legislative overreach, protect FRs | Provide justice to the disadvantaged, address public grievances | Ensure social justice, fill policy gaps, expand rights |
| Locus Standi | Traditional (aggrieved party) | Relaxed (any public-spirited citizen/organisation) | Not directly applicable; it's a judicial stance |
| Constitutional Basis | Articles 13, 32, 131-136, 226, 227 | Articles 32, 226 (through judicial interpretation) | No specific article; inherent in judicial power |
| Origin | Inherent in constitutional design | Judicial innovation (late 1970s/early 1980s) | Evolved over time, particularly with PIL's rise |
| Relationship | PIL is a manifestation of judicial activism. Judicial activism is a form of judicial review. |
Case Study
- Judicial Review (Constitutional Amendments): The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, which established the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to replace the collegium system for judicial appointments, was declared unconstitutional and null and void by the Supreme Court in 2015. The Court held that the NJAC Act violated the independence of the judiciary, which is a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. This landmark judgment reaffirmed the judiciary's power to review constitutional amendments.
- PIL (Environmental Protection): The M.C. Mehta v. Union of India series of cases (1980s-1990s) exemplify the power of PIL in environmental governance. Through these PILs, the Supreme Court issued numerous directives, including the closure of polluting industries, the introduction of lead-free petrol, and the establishment of the Central Pollution Control Board, significantly shaping India's environmental jurisprudence and holding the executive accountable for environmental protection.
Mains Hooks
- Ethics & Governance: The judiciary's role as a watchdog through judicial review and PIL contributes to good governance by ensuring accountability and transparency. However, the ethical dilemma of judicial overreach versus judicial restraint is a recurring theme. Judges must balance their constitutional duty with the principle of separation of powers, avoiding encroachment into legislative or executive domains. This requires judicial statesmanship and adherence to judicial ethics.
- Separation of Powers & Federalism: Judicial review is crucial for maintaining the delicate balance of power among the three organs of government. By striking down unconstitutional laws or executive actions, it prevents legislative or executive excesses. In a federal structure like India, judicial review also ensures the division of powers between the Centre and states is upheld, preventing either from encroaching upon the other's domain (e.g., Article 131).
- Constitutionalism & Rule of Law: Judicial review is indispensable for upholding constitutionalism, ensuring that all governmental actions are in conformity with the Constitution. It reinforces the rule of law by subjecting even the highest authorities to constitutional scrutiny, thereby preventing arbitrary exercise of power.
Recent Developments
- Continued Debates on Judicial Appointments: Post-NJAC judgment, the debate on judicial appointments continues, with discussions around transparency and accountability in the collegium system. This highlights the ongoing tension between judicial independence and executive involvement.
- Expansion of PIL Scope: PILs continue to be filed on a wide range of issues, from migrant labour crises during the COVID-19 pandemic to electoral reforms and social justice issues. The judiciary has shown willingness to intervene in matters of public health, education, and human rights, demonstrating its adaptive role.
- Use of Review and Curative Petitions: High-profile cases, such as the Ayodhya verdict and the Sabarimala temple entry case, have seen the extensive use of review and curative petitions, underscoring their significance as final judicial remedies and avenues for reconsideration in matters of national importance.
This is a traditional legal rule which means 'a right to appear in court.' Under this rule, only the person whose legal rights are directly violated can file a petition. Judicial activism relaxed this rule to allow Public Interest Litigations.
This is a traditional legal rule which means 'a right to appear in court.' Under this rule, only the person whose legal rights are directly violated can file a petition. Judicial activism relaxed this rule to allow Public Interest Litigations. This was essential to help marginalized communities who do not have the money or knowledge to approach the Supreme Court or High Courts themselves.
Suo Motu is a Latin phrase meaning 'on its own motion'. It happens when the court takes notice of an issue without anyone filing a case. For example, if a judge reads a news report about child labor, they can start a PIL case immediately.
Suo Motu is a Latin phrase meaning 'on its own motion'. It happens when the court takes notice of an issue without anyone filing a case. For example, if a judge reads a news report about child labor, they can start a PIL case immediately. This shows the court acting as a protector of the people's interests without waiting for a formal petition.
Judicial appointments in India are governed by the Collegium system, established through Judges Cases, ensuring independence. The NJAC, introduced by the 99th Amendment, was struck down for affecting
Definition
Judicial independence is paramount for the Supreme Court to effectively discharge its duties as a federal court, the highest court of appeal, the guarantor of fundamental rights, and the guardian of the Constitution. It mandates freedom from executive and legislative encroachments, pressures, and interferences, allowing judges to deliver justice without fear or favour.
Key Facts
The Constitution of India has enshrined several provisions to safeguard and ensure the independent and impartial functioning of the Supreme Court:
- Mode of Appointment: Judges are appointed by the President (effectively the Cabinet) in consultation with members of the judiciary itself. This mechanism, evolved over time, aims to curtail absolute executive discretion and prevent politically motivated appointments.
- Security of Tenure: Supreme Court judges enjoy security of tenure. They can only be removed by the President through a constitutionally prescribed process, on grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity, and not at the pleasure of the President.
- Fixed Service Conditions: Salaries, allowances, privileges, leave, and pension of judges are determined by Parliament but cannot be altered to their disadvantage after appointment, ensuring financial independence.
- Expenses Charged on Consolidated Fund: The administrative expenses of the Supreme Court, including salaries and pensions of judges and staff, are charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India, making them non-votable by Parliament.
- Conduct of Judges Cannot Be Discussed: Except during an impeachment motion, the conduct of Supreme Court judges cannot be discussed in Parliament or state legislatures.
- Ban on Practice After Retirement: Retired Supreme Court judges are prohibited from pleading or acting in any court or before any authority within India, preventing potential conflicts of interest.
- Power to Punish for Contempt: The Supreme Court can punish any person for its contempt, upholding its authority and dignity.
- Separation of Judiciary from Executive: Article 50 of the DPSP directs the state to separate the judiciary from the executive, aiming to prevent executive influence.
Currently, the Supreme Court consists of thirty-four judges (one Chief Justice and thirty-three other judges), as increased by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019.
Mechanism: Evolution of Judicial Appointments
Initially, the President appointed judges after consultation with relevant judges. The interpretation of 'consultation' evolved significantly through a series of landmark cases:
- First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1982): The Supreme Court held that 'consultation' does not mean 'concurrence' and only implies an exchange of views. This gave the executive primacy in appointments.
- Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 1993): Overruling its previous verdict, the Court established the Collegium System. It held that 'consultation' effectively meant 'concurrence' and that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) must tender advice after consulting two senior-most colleagues. The CJI's recommendation was binding on the government.
- Third Judges Case (In re Presidential Reference, 1998): The Court clarified that the consultation process for the CJI requires a 'plurality of judges'. The CJI must consult a collegium of four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. If two judges give an adverse opinion, the CJI should not send the recommendation to the government. Recommendations made without complying with these norms are not binding.
Exam Angle
The evolution of judicial appointments highlights the delicate balance of power between the executive and the judiciary. The Collegium System, while ensuring judicial independence, has faced criticism for its lack of transparency and accountability. Understanding these 'Judges Cases' and their implications is critical for UPSC aspirants, as they form the bedrock of India's judicial appointment process and the concept of judicial independence.
Analysis: Collegium vs. NJAC
The debate over judicial appointments in India primarily revolves around the Collegium System and the proposed National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). Each system presents distinct advantages and disadvantages concerning judicial independence and accountability.
Collegium System (post-1993):
- Pros: Ensures judicial independence by insulating appointments from political interference. Judges, being best placed to assess judicial merit, select their peers, theoretically leading to more competent appointments. It upholds the separation of powers by preventing executive dominance in judicial selection.
- Cons: Lacks transparency and accountability. The selection process is opaque, with no public record of deliberations or reasons for selections/rejections. It is often criticized for potential nepotism, favouritism, and lack of diversity. There is no formal mechanism for public or executive input, leading to a perception of 'judges appointing judges'.
National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC):
- Pros: Aimed to introduce transparency and accountability by including executive and civil society representatives. It sought to broaden the consultative base for appointments, potentially bringing in diverse perspectives and reducing the perception of opacity. It was seen as a move towards greater democratic legitimacy in judicial appointments.
- Cons: The Supreme Court, in the Fourth Judges Case (2015), found that the NJAC's composition, particularly the inclusion of the Union Law Minister and two eminent persons (selected by a committee including the PM, CJI, and Leader of Opposition), gave the executive a significant say. This was deemed to compromise judicial independence, as the executive could potentially veto judicial appointments, thereby undermining the basic structure of the Constitution.
Comparison Table
| Feature | Collegium System (post-1993) | National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) (2014) SPOILER ALERT: 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 2a (2015). The court opined that the new system (i.e., NJAC) would affect the independence of the judiciary.
The President of India has the power to ask the Supreme Court for its opinion on matters of law or public importance. However, the Court is not always forced to give an opinion.
The President of India has the power to ask the Supreme Court for its opinion on matters of law or public importance. However, the Court is not always forced to give an opinion. Also, the President is not legally bound to follow the advice given by the Court. A famous example is the Kerala Education Bill case where advice was sought.
Writs are formal written orders issued by the courts to protect Fundamental Rights.
Writs are formal written orders issued by the courts to protect Fundamental Rights. There are five types: Habeas Corpus (to produce a person), Mandamus (to command duty), Prohibition (to stop lower courts), Certiorari (to quash orders), and Quo-Warranto (to check legality of holding office). For example, Habeas Corpus protects you if you are illegally arrested by the police.
This article acts as the foundation for Judicial Review in India. It states that all laws that were in force before the Constitution began, or laws made after it, must not violate Fundamental Rights.
This article acts as the foundation for Judicial Review in India. It states that all laws that were in force before the Constitution began, or laws made after it, must not violate Fundamental Rights. If a law contradicts these rights, it becomes 'void' or invalid to the extent of that contradiction. Example: If a new law stops people from practicing their religion, the court uses Article 13 to strike it down.
This is a legal rule created by the Supreme Court in 1973. It says that the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, but it cannot change its 'basic features'. Judicial Review is one such basic feature.
This is a legal rule created by the Supreme Court in 1973. It says that the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, but it cannot change its 'basic features'. Judicial Review is one such basic feature. This ensures that the government cannot use its majority to turn India into a dictatorship. Example: The Parliament cannot pass a law to remove the power of the courts to check laws.
In a normal case, only the person who is hurt can go to court. This is called 'Locus Standi'. PIL relaxes this rule. It allows any public-spirited citizen to file a case on behalf of others who cannot reach the court.
In a normal case, only the person who is hurt can go to court. This is called 'Locus Standi'. PIL relaxes this rule. It allows any public-spirited citizen to file a case on behalf of others who cannot reach the court. It is used for matters like pollution, bonded labor, or human rights. For example, a lawyer can file a PIL to provide clean drinking water to a village.
Judicial Activism is when the judiciary goes beyond its traditional role. Usually, judges only interpret laws made by the Parliament. In activism, they give directions to the government to protect citizen rights.
Judicial Activism is when the judiciary goes beyond its traditional role. Usually, judges only interpret laws made by the Parliament. In activism, they give directions to the government to protect citizen rights. PIL is the most important tool of Judicial Activism in India. It helps the court fill gaps where there is no clear law from the government.
This is a system where a group of senior judges decides who should be appointed as judges to the higher courts. It consists of the Chief Justice of India and the four most senior judges of the Supreme Court.
This is a system where a group of senior judges decides who should be appointed as judges to the higher courts. It consists of the Chief Justice of India and the four most senior judges of the Supreme Court. This system is not mentioned in the original Constitution but grew out of specific court cases known as 'Judges Cases'.
This happens when the judiciary crosses its boundary and enters the territory of the legislature or executive. While activism is positive, overreach is often criticized.
This happens when the judiciary crosses its boundary and enters the territory of the legislature or executive. While activism is positive, overreach is often criticized. It happens when judges start making policies or administrative decisions that should be made by elected officials. Example: The court deciding the specific height of speed breakers on a city road, which is actually an engineering and administrative task.
This refers to cases that start directly in the Supreme Court without going to lower courts first. It mainly covers disputes between the Government of India and one or more States. It also handles fights between two or more States.
This refers to cases that start directly in the Supreme Court without going to lower courts first. It mainly covers disputes between the Government of India and one or more States. It also handles fights between two or more States. For example, if State A and State B have a conflict over river water sharing, they go to the Supreme Court under this power.
High Courts can issue five types of writs: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo-Warranto. They use these to protect fundamental rights. Interestingly, High Courts can also issue writs for ordinary legal rights.
High Courts can issue five types of writs: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo-Warranto. They use these to protect fundamental rights. Interestingly, High Courts can also issue writs for ordinary legal rights. This makes their writ power wider than the Supreme Court's power. For example, if a local body illegally stops your construction work, you can file a writ in the High Court.
The High Court has the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territory. It can call for records from lower courts and issue general rules for their functioning.
The High Court has the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territory. It can call for records from lower courts and issue general rules for their functioning. This ensures that all lower courts follow the same legal procedures. For example, the High Court can decide how cases should be filed or how accounts should be kept in district courts.
The Governor of the State makes the appointment, posting, and promotion of district judges. This is done in consultation with the High Court. A candidate must not be in the service of the Central or State government.
The Governor of the State makes the appointment, posting, and promotion of district judges. This is done in consultation with the High Court. A candidate must not be in the service of the Central or State government. They must be an advocate for 7 years and be recommended by the High Court. This ensures the judge is experienced and the process is fair. For example, a senior lawyer can be directly appointed as a District Judge if they meet these criteria.
High Courts serve as a 'Court of Record.' This means all their judgments and proceedings are recorded for permanent memory. These records are used as evidence in future cases. Lower courts cannot question these records and must follow them as law.
High Courts serve as a 'Court of Record.' This means all their judgments and proceedings are recorded for permanent memory. These records are used as evidence in future cases. Lower courts cannot question these records and must follow them as law. If someone insults the court or disobeys its orders, the High Court has the power to punish them for 'contempt of court.'
This means a law is valid if it has been passed following the correct steps or procedure. In the past, Indian courts only checked if the 'procedure' was followed.
This means a law is valid if it has been passed following the correct steps or procedure. In the past, Indian courts only checked if the 'procedure' was followed. However, since the Maneka Gandhi case (1978), the courts also check if the law is 'just, fair, and reasonable'. This brings it closer to the American concept of 'Due Process of Law'.
Locus Standi is a Latin term meaning 'the right to be heard'. Traditionally, it means only the person who suffered a loss can file a case in court. For example, if your land is taken, only you can sue. PIL relaxes this rule.
Locus Standi is a Latin term meaning 'the right to be heard'. Traditionally, it means only the person who suffered a loss can file a case in court. For example, if your land is taken, only you can sue. PIL relaxes this rule. It allows a stranger to file a case for someone else who is unable to do so because of poverty or ignorance.
The district level has two main branches. On the civil side, below the District Judge, is the Subordinate Judge's Court, and then the Munsiff's Court.
The district level has two main branches. On the civil side, below the District Judge, is the Subordinate Judge's Court, and then the Munsiff's Court. On the criminal side, below the Sessions Judge, is the Chief Judicial Magistrate, followed by the Judicial Magistrate. Each level has specific limits on the value of cases or types of punishments they can handle. For example, a Munsiff's court deals with small property claims within a specific financial limit.
This is a legal tool that allows any citizen to seek justice for a group of people. It relaxes the rule of 'Locus Standi.' In the past, only the victim could go to court.
This is a legal tool that allows any citizen to seek justice for a group of people. It relaxes the rule of 'Locus Standi.' In the past, only the victim could go to court. Now, if a group is too poor or weak, someone else can file a case on their behalf. Example: A social worker filing a case to improve the conditions of people living in state-run shelters.
Lok Adalats or 'People's Courts' are based on Gandhian principles. They offer a way to settle disputes outside the regular court system. It is a forum where cases pending in court are settled through compromise.
Lok Adalats or 'People's Courts' are based on Gandhian principles. They offer a way to settle disputes outside the regular court system. It is a forum where cases pending in court are settled through compromise. The process is free of cost and very fast. The decision of a Lok Adalat is final and binding on all parties. No appeal can be made against its decision in any court of law. This helps reduce the huge backlog of cases.
Ready to practice? Start an interactive lesson.
Start Lesson: Composition & Jurisdiction of Supreme Court