Supreme Court of India: Composition, Appointment, and Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court of India stands as the apex judicial body in the country’s legal framework, serving as the final interpreter of the Constitution and the ultimate guardian of citizens’ fundamental rights. Established on January 26, 1950, the day India became a sovereign republic, this institution has evolved into a powerful entity that maintains the constitutional balance between various organs of government while ensuring justice remains accessible to all citizens. Its unique position at the summit of India’s judicial hierarchy grants it extensive powers and responsibilities that shape the nation’s legal, social, and political landscape.

Composition of the Supreme Court 🔗

The Supreme Court of India has a carefully structured composition designed to ensure efficient functioning and comprehensive legal expertise.

Strength and leadership 🔗

Originally, the Supreme Court consisted of eight judges, including the Chief Justice of India. However, as the country’s population grew and legal complexities increased, the number of judges has been progressively increased through constitutional amendments. Currently, the Supreme Court comprises the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and up to twenty-six other judges, bringing the total strength to twenty-seven.

The Chief Justice of India serves as the administrative head of the institution and is responsible for case allocation, court roster management, and judicial appointments. The CJI’s role extends beyond merely being the “first among equals” as they significantly influence the court’s functioning and priorities.

Qualifications for appointment 🔗

The Constitution prescribes specific qualifications for appointment as a Supreme Court judge under Article 124(3). A person can be appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court if they:

• Judicial experience: Have been a High Court judge for at least five years
• Advocacy experience: Have practiced as an advocate in a High Court for at least ten years
• Distinguished jurist: Are a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President

These qualifications ensure that only individuals with substantial legal experience and expertise reach the apex court. Notably, the third category of “distinguished jurist” has rarely been utilized in practice, with most appointments coming from the judiciary or the bar.

Appointment Process and the Collegium System 🔗

Evolution of the appointment mechanism 🔗

The appointment process for Supreme Court judges has undergone significant transformation through judicial interpretation. Initially, Article 124(2) of the Constitution provided that judges would be appointed by the President after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as deemed necessary. The Chief Justice was to be consulted for all appointments except their own.

However, through the “Three Judges Cases” (1981-1998), the Supreme Court reinterpreted this provision to establish what is now known as the collegium system.

The collegium system explained 🔗

The collegium system is a judge-made mechanism for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. For Supreme Court appointments, the collegium consists of the Chief Justice of India and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. This body deliberates on potential appointees and makes recommendations to the government.

The collegium’s recommendations are nearly binding on the government, which can return a recommendation once for reconsideration. However, if the collegium reiterates its recommendation unanimously, the government is bound to make the appointment. This system aims to protect judicial independence by limiting executive interference in judicial appointments.

Tenure and removal 🔗

Supreme Court judges serve until they reach the age of 65 years. They can only be removed before the completion of their term through impeachment by Parliament on grounds of “proven misbehavior or incapacity.” The impeachment process requires a special majority (two-thirds of members present and voting) in both houses of Parliament, making it an extremely difficult process. In fact, no Supreme Court judge has ever been successfully impeached in India.

Jurisdictions of the Supreme Court 🔗

The Supreme Court exercises wide-ranging jurisdictions that empower it to fulfill its constitutional mandate effectively.

Original jurisdiction 🔗

Article 131 confers original jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court in disputes:

• Between the Government of India and one or more states
• Between the Government of India and any state or states on one side and one or more other states on the other
• Between two or more states

This jurisdiction is exclusive, meaning such disputes can only be decided by the Supreme Court. It primarily deals with federal disputes involving questions of legal rights between the Union and States or between States themselves. For instance, river water disputes, boundary conflicts, or issues of legislative competence often fall under this jurisdiction.

Additionally, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction for enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32, which allows citizens to directly approach the apex court for constitutional remedies when their fundamental rights are violated.

Appellate jurisdiction 🔗

The Supreme Court serves as the highest appellate court in the country, hearing appeals from High Courts and other tribunals. Its appellate jurisdiction can be categorized into three main types:

1. Constitutional appeals: When a High Court certifies that a case involves a substantial question of law relating to the interpretation of the Constitution (Article 132)
2. Civil appeals: From High Court judgments, decrees, or final orders in civil proceedings if the High Court certifies the case as fit for appeal (Article 133)
3. Criminal appeals: From High Court judgments, final orders, or sentences in criminal proceedings (Article 134)

Additionally, the Supreme Court can grant special leave to appeal under Article 136 from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any case passed by any court or tribunal in India. This extraordinary power enables the Court to intervene in cases of grave injustice, even when regular appeals are not available.

Advisory jurisdiction 🔗

Under Article 143, the President can seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on:

• Questions of law or fact: Any question of law or fact that has arisen or is likely to arise and is of such nature and public importance that obtaining the Court’s opinion is expedient
• Disputes arising from pre-Constitution agreements: Any dispute arising out of any pre-Constitution treaty, agreement, or similar instrument

While the Court’s advisory opinion is not binding like a regular judgment, it carries significant persuasive value. Notable examples include opinions on the Ayodhya land dispute, the validity of the Presidential reference regarding the 2G spectrum allocation, and the constitutionality of various proposed legislations.

Review and curative jurisdiction 🔗

Article 137 empowers the Supreme Court to review its own judgments or orders. This power is exercised when there is discovery of new evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. The review petition is typically heard by the same bench that delivered the original judgment.

Beyond review, the Supreme Court has developed a “curative petition” mechanism through judicial innovation. This allows challenging a review order on grounds of natural justice violations and bias, providing a last resort for correcting grave miscarriages of justice. Curative petitions are circulated to the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the judgment under challenge.

Role in Constitutional Interpretation 🔗

Guardian of the Constitution 🔗

The Supreme Court’s primary role is to interpret the Constitution and ensure that all laws and executive actions conform to constitutional principles. Through its power of judicial review, it can strike down laws that contravene the basic structure of the Constitution or violate fundamental rights.

The “basic structure doctrine,” developed in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), holds that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure or essential features such as judicial independence, federalism, secularism, democracy, and rule of law. This doctrine has been pivotal in preserving India’s constitutional identity against excessive legislative power.

Shaping constitutional jurisprudence 🔗

Through creative interpretation, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of fundamental rights beyond their textual limitations. For instance, it has read the right to life under Article 21 to include rights to clean environment, privacy, education, shelter, and healthcare, among others.

The Court has also developed innovative mechanisms like Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to enhance access to justice for marginalized sections of society. PILs have enabled judicial intervention in areas ranging from environmental protection and prison reforms to corruption and human rights violations.

The Supreme Court and Judicial Activism 🔗

The concept of judicial activism refers to the Court’s proactive role in addressing social issues through liberal interpretation of laws and the Constitution. The Supreme Court has often stepped in to fill governance gaps when legislative or executive actions have been inadequate.

Notable instances of judicial activism 🔗

• Environmental protection: Through cases like the Taj Trapezium Case and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Court has issued directives for pollution control and environmental conservation
• Anti-corruption measures: The Court has monitored investigations into high-profile corruption cases and established guidelines for appointments to anti-corruption bodies
• Electoral reforms: Directives requiring candidates to disclose criminal antecedents, financial assets, and educational qualifications have increased transparency in the electoral process
• Gender justice: Judgments on sexual harassment at workplace (Vishaka guidelines), triple talaq, and women’s entry into religious places have advanced gender equality

Criticisms and limitations 🔗

While judicial activism has addressed many social concerns, it has also invited criticism. Critics argue that it sometimes encroaches upon the legislature’s and executive’s domains, potentially upsetting the constitutional separation of powers. The Supreme Court’s capacity to monitor implementation of its directives is limited, and some of its activist judgments have faced implementation challenges.

Moreover, the Court’s expanding role raises questions about judicial accountability. Since judges are not elected representatives, their extensive policy-making through activism has sometimes been viewed as democratically problematic.

Contemporary Challenges and Reforms 🔗

Pendency of cases 🔗

Despite its constitutional mandate to ensure speedy justice, the Supreme Court faces a substantial backlog of cases. As of 2023, thousands of cases remain pending before the apex court, some for several years. This undermines the effectiveness of the judicial system and delays justice for many litigants.

To address this challenge, proposals include increasing the number of judges, creating specialized benches for different categories of cases, and utilizing technology for case management and virtual hearings.

Transparency in the collegium system 🔗

The collegium system, while designed to protect judicial independence, has been criticized for its opacity and lack of accountability. The selection criteria for judges often remain unclear, and the system has been accused of promoting nepotism and favoring certain sections of the legal community.

Efforts to reform this system led to the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act in 2014, which aimed to replace the collegium with a commission including executive representatives. However, the Supreme Court struck down this Act as unconstitutional in 2015, holding that it undermined judicial independence. Since then, there have been attempts to make the collegium more transparent by publishing reasons for recommendations and creating a secretariat for the collegium.

Regional representation and diversity 🔗

The Supreme Court has faced criticism for inadequate representation of various regions, communities, and gender. Historically, judges have predominantly come from certain High Courts and legal backgrounds, limiting the diversity of perspectives on the bench.

Recent efforts have focused on increasing representation of women and judges from diverse regional and social backgrounds. However, progress has been gradual, and achieving true diversity remains a work in progress.

Conclusion 🔗

The Supreme Court of India occupies a central position in the country’s constitutional framework. Beyond its judicial functions, it serves as a constitutional court, a protector of fundamental rights, and a balancing force in the federal structure. Its evolution from a modest beginning to its current stature reflects the growing complexity of legal issues and the expanding role of judiciary in India’s governance.

The Court’s unique features – its extensive jurisdictions, its position as the final interpreter of the Constitution, and its activist approach to social issues – make it distinctive among apex courts globally. While challenges of pendency, transparency, and representation persist, the Supreme Court continues to command significant public trust and remains a pivotal institution in safeguarding democracy and constitutionalism in India.

What do you think? Do you believe the collegium system effectively ensures judicial independence, or should there be more transparency and external participation in the appointment process? How can the Supreme Court balance its role as a guardian of fundamental rights with respecting the separation of powers between different branches of government?