Which body is one of the most essential bodies across the three pillars of our democracy? The answer should be one, and it ought to be the Judiciary in India. In that, the Indian Supreme Court has been regarded as the face of the Indian Judicial system and superior savior of our Indian Constitution. Its role is multi-dimensional in nature. For its people, it is the savior and an ultimate justice provider; for Legislature and Executive, it acts as a wall if they use their discretionary powers. In all ways, it has been tremendous in protecting and promoting just, fair and reasonable judgments. When it comes to constitutional issues, we have been seeing the way it reasons out while delivering the judgment. This article will look into the aspect of different jurisdictions of the supreme court of India and their importance.

Different Jurisdictions of Supreme Court:

Before looking into are different jurisdictions of the Supreme Court of India, we should have an understanding of what jurisdiction means. Let us refer to Black’s Law Dictionary for the same. It defines jurisdiction as “The word is a term of large and comprehensive import, and embraces every kind of judicial action.” In other words, jurisdiction is a power that has been dispended to an organ for greater justice delivery. It empowers an organ to hold any judicial action.

It is important to note that there are other jurisdictions apart from Original, Appellate, and advisory jurisdictions. According to MP Jain’s views on powers and jurisdictions, this is because of the presence of vast areas of law and the duties vested on the supreme court of India. He enlists the jurisdictions, or in other words, the powers to take over the case are as follows.

• The Supreme Court has the power to sue a person on the ground of contempt of court under section 129 of the Constitution. This is to means that Supreme Court is a court of record, and has powers of its own.

In other words, the powers of a court of record are 1) to determine its own jurisdiction 2) can punish any person for contempt of court.

• It can also take cognizance to try cases that are dealing or involving inter-governmental matters under section 131 of the Constitution.
• An extended jurisdiction over the cases of appeal from any of the quasi-judicial bodies or even other courts which are residuary in nature shall also come under its jurisdiction.
• As part of enforcing the fundamental rights of its citizens, the Supreme Court of India is empowered under article 32 for dealing with writ petitions.
• Article 137 of the Indian Constitution gives or enables the Supreme Court to review its own cases.
• Lastly, article 142 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to make some of the orders to ensure complete justice in any case, for that matter.

These are some other jurisdictions and powers of the Supreme Court which are not covered generally under the types of jurisdiction but are essential for a constitutional law student or a lawyer to know. Three main jurisdictions shall be explained as follows.

Three main Jurisdictions:

Having seen different jurisdictions and the power to take over any cases by the Supreme Court of India, it is important to note the major jurisdictions of this supreme juridical organ. Those jurisdictions, as mentioned earlier, are 1) Original, 2) Appellate, and 3) Advisory jurisdictions.

Original Jurisdiction:

Let us understand the powers of the Supreme Court under original jurisdiction. Article 32 of the Constitution deals with the enforcement of fundamental rights by the supreme court of India. It gives power to Supreme Court to issue writs in case of violation of fundamental rights of people. People in the country, through the form of writ petitions, can seek to enforce their fundamental rights, which were violated by the state or any institution. Article 32 has also been noted for its feature of protecting and guarding the rights of its citizens. A few of the best examples of this is MC Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum gas leak case) and Bandhua Mukti Morcha case (the apex court took suo moto cognizance over the issue by considering the same through a letter made to the court), where the court rejecting the contentions of the defendant, held that even if there were no proper representations made for the victims of violations, the court could direct the defendant to pay the compensation for those victims who suffered through their acts. Original jurisdiction shall be exercised in case of discrepancies in the elections of the president, vice-president and also in the case of Inter-governmental disputes under article 131 of the Indian Constitution.

Appellate jurisdiction:

When can this be exercised? Article 132 of the Indian Constitution empowers Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction. Article 132(1) states that this can be extended to all matters such as civil, criminal, and other proceedings of a high court or any lower court. Article 132(2) requires the certificate to be issued by the high court for any appellant to proceed with the appellate jurisdiction. This certificate should state what exactly is the question of law that the Supreme Court should decide the same.

Advisory Jurisdiction:

What is the advisory jurisdiction? Article 143 of the Indian Constitution gives advisory jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. Clause 1 of Article 143 states that if the president thinks that if there is any question of law that has to be cleared, he can recommend the court to clarify the same and can require the opinion on the same from the court. The court, if it thinks fit, can denote the same to the president of India. It has been observed that this power under article 143(1) is quite broad in nature, as the president can ask the court to give its opinion for a case that would arise in the future also and not only for present cases. One of the examples of this jurisdiction was In re Berubari case.

Conclusion:

Having seen the important jurisdictions and their scope, it becomes very clear that Supreme Court can exercise its power upon any case in which it doesn’t have any jurisdiction to do. This is because of the fact that there is no express provision restraining the intervention of this court.