INTRODUCTION:
Supreme Court of India was established under Part V and Chapter IV of the Indian Constitution. Its establishment was based on the replacement of the Federal Court of India and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is the superior and final judicial authority of the Republic of India under the constitution. It has the authority to make final decisions in all matters except matters related to personal laws. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) is the senior judge of the Supreme Court other than 34 other judges. Its jurisdiction is laid down in Articles 124 to 147 under the Indian Constitution. Classification is as follows—
- Original Jurisdiction
- Appellate Jurisdiction
- Advisory Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Article 131 provides for Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in matters related to—
- Dispute between the Union Government and one or more states or;
- Dispute between the Indian Government, one more state constituting one party, and one or more states constituting other party.
- Disputes between two or more states.
The jurisdiction may come to an end if the dispute is arising out of any treaty, agreement, or covenant. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be restricted by other constitutional provisions as well.
In the case of the State of Bihar v. Union of India, the plaintiff brought the suit against the defendants. With an intent of adjudication, the dispute between parties by the hon’ble Supreme Court. Defendants of the suit include the Government of India, Hindustan Steel Limited, and Indian Iron and Steel Company limited During the proceedings primary issue that arise was whether Supreme Court has Jurisdiction to adjudicate the same or not. It was held that the court is only liable to adjudicate matters to extent of enforcement of the legal right. The court has no authority to adjudicate the complete dispute. Further, the suit was held not maintainable as private parties are involved.
Article 138 of the Indian Constitution provides for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights by the Supreme Court. Further, Article 32 provides the Supreme Court power to issue directions, orders, and writs. The writs include Habeas Corpus, Quo Warranto Mandamus, Prohibition, and Certiorari.
Habeas Corpus: Ordering to produce detainee before the court to decide whether the detention was valid or not. This writ can be issued even in times of emergency.
Mandamus: Directing a public official to continue the discharge of his public duty.
Prohibition: It is issued to Subordinate Court when the matter decided by it does not fall in its jurisdiction.
Certiorari: It is issued when Subordinate Court violates the principles of natural justice. The decision by it stands quashed.
Quo Warranto: It is issued to a public authority to justify its action.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Article 132 and 133 provides for the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can entertain an appeal against a High Court’s Judgement, Decree, or Order. But the same must be certified by the concerned high court that involves ‘Substantial Question of Law’. Party can appeal that such a question was determined wrongly. If the order was decided in favor of the appellant the Supreme Court may refuse to entertain the such appeal. In Ramachandra Manjimal v. Goverdhandas Ratanchand, a stay order was granted by Judicial Commissioner certifying the order as a ‘Final Order’. However, it was held that an order cannot be deemed as a final Order’ as the rights of parties are not determined.
No appeal would lie before Supreme Court if the Order, Decree, and Judgement are decided by a Single Judge of the High Court.
Article 137 of the Indian Constitution provides the Supreme Court power to review judgments, orders, and decree given by it. Application for review can be made within 30 days of such an order having certification of Advocate on Record. The court may or may not entertain any such application based on the fact whether justice was carried or not. In Union of India v. Sandur Manganese, Iron Ore., an application for review was filed. It was contended that the report on which the judgement relied was quoted wrongly. However, the court held that merely on the ground of clerical error the judgment could not be reviewed. There must be grave errors or omissions in the judgment given by it to invoke review jurisdiction.
The review may be preferred depending upon the High Court’s Certificate of the matter involving Substantial Questions of Law. It is totally at the discretion of the Supreme Court to take up such a review petition or not.
An appeal can be made before Supreme Court if—
- On appeal, the acquittal was reversed to the death sentence.
- The trial was withdrawn from any Subordinate Court under its jurisdiction, such trial convicted the accused sentencing him to death.
The review based on any of these grounds shall be right.
An appeal was laid down before Supreme Court against the Death Sentence of the appellant issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. High Court does not certify the same still Supreme Court takes up the matter and sets aside the conviction of the appellant. It was held that it was one of the special cases where the appellant was convicted even though the evidence was insufficient.
ADVISORY JURISDICTION:
Article 143 provides that President may seek advice on matters of public policy from the Supreme Court. The court shall give its opinion or may refuse to give its opinion reason being strong, compelling, and good. The first reference under this article was made in the case of Delhi laws (1951 SCR 747). So far 12 references have been made under this article.
In the matter of the Re Cauvery Dispute Tribunal Case, the advice of the Supreme Court was taken up. The issue was whether the tribunal established under Inter-State Water Dispute Act has the right to grant interim relief. The court stated that it does not form part of Presidential Reference and is merely advisory in nature.
The president seeks the advice of the Supreme Court on whether the existence of a temple on the site of Babri Masjid violates secularism. Supreme Court refused to give its opinion as the ground for reference was.
CONCLUSION:
The Supreme Court is the Highest Court of appeal and is responsible for the Rule of Law being followed in the country. It also has the power to punish Contempt of Court as conferred in Articles 129 and 142 of the Indian Constitution. It may take up matters via Public Interest Litigation or any matters related to the public interest. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be extended if the Parliament of India deems it fit.
