User:Sunil Budhwat/sandbox

Supreme Court of India From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. Please discuss this issue on the talk page and read the layout guide to make sure the section will be inclusive of all essential details. (July 2013) Supreme Court of India भारत का उच्चतम न्यायालय Emblem of the Supreme Court of India.svg Established 	28 January 1950 Country 	India Location 	New Delhi Coordinates 	28.622237°N 77.239584°ECoordinates: 28.622237°N 77.239584°E Composition method 	Executive selection (Qualifications imposed) Authorized by 	Constitution of India Decisions are appealed to 	President of India for Clemency/Commutation of sentence Judge term length 	65 years of age Number of positions 	31 (30+1) Website 	supremecourtofindia.nic.in Motto यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः॥ Whence dharma, thence victory. Chief Justice of India Currently 	P. Sathasivam Since 	19 July 2013 Lead position ends 	26 April 2014 Jurist term ends 	26 April 2014 Republic of India Emblem of India.svg This article is part of the series: Politics and government of India Union Government[show] Elections[show] Political parties[show] Local and state govt.[show]

Other countries Atlas

Portal icon Government of India portal

v   t    e

The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial forum and final court of appeal as established by Part V, Chapter IV of the Constitution of India. According to the Constitution, the role of the Supreme Court is that of a federal court and the guardian of the Constitution.

Articles 124 to 147 of the Constitution of India lay down the composition and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court has Original jurisdiction in disputes involving between the Government of India and one or more States or between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more States on the other or between two or more States. The Supreme Court is meant to be the last resort and highest appellate court which takes up appeals against the verdicts of the High Courts and other courts of the states and territories. Also, the Supreme court has the power of Judicial review as per Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of India held its inaugural sitting on 28 January 1950. Contents

1 Constitution of the court 1.1 History 1.2 Registry 1.3 Supreme Court Advocates 1.3.1 Senior Advocates 1.3.2 Advocate-on-Record 1.3.3 Other Advocates 2 The Supreme Court Building and its architecture 3 Composition 3.1 Size of the court 3.1.1 Eligibility 3.2 Appointments and the Collegium 3.3 Tenure 3.4 Salary 3.5 Court demographics 4 Jurisdiction 4.1 Original jurisdiction 4.2 Appellate jurisdiction 4.3 Advisory jurisdiction 5 Rules 6 Reporting and citation 7 Judicial independence 7.1 Power to review its own judgements 7.2 Powers to punish contempt 8 Landmark judgments: Judiciary-Legislature confrontations 8.1 Land reform (early confrontation) 8.2 Other laws deemed unconstitutional 8.2.1 Response from Parliament 8.2.2 Counter-response from the Supreme Court 9 Emergency and Government of India 10 Post-1980: an assertive Supreme Court 11 ==Recent important cases 11.1 2G spectrum scam 11.2 Black money 11.3 Minority reservations 12 Criticism 12.1 Corruption and misconduct of judges 12.2 Pendency of cases 13 See also 14 References 15 External links

Constitution of the court History

On 28 January 1950, two days after India became a sovereign democratic republic, the Supreme Court came into being. The inauguration took place in the Chamber of Princes in the Parliament building. The Chamber of Princes had earlier been the seat of the Federal Court of India for 12 years, between 1937 and 1950, and was the seat of the Supreme Court until the Supreme Court acquired its present premises in 1958.

The Supreme Court of India replaced both the Federal Court of India and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council at the apex of the Indian court system.

After its inauguration on 28 January 1950, the Supreme Court commenced its sittings in the Chamber of Princes in the Parliament House. The Court moved into the present building in 1958. The Supreme Court Bar Association is the bar of the highest court. The current president of the SCBA is M.N. Krishnamani. Supreme Court of India – Central Wing Registry

The Registry of the Supreme Court is headed by the Secretary General who is assisted in his work by seven Registrars, and twenty one Additional Registrars etc. Article 146 of the Constitution deals with the appointments of officers and servants of the Supreme Court Registry.[1] Supreme Court Advocates

There are three categories of Advocates who are entitled to practise law before the Supreme Court of India:- Senior Advocates

These are Advocates who are designated as Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court of India or by any High Court. The Court can designate any Advocate, with his consent, as Senior Advocate if in its opinion by virtue of his ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law the said Advocate is deserving of such distinction. A Senior Advocate is not entitled to appear without an Advocate-on-Record in the Supreme Court or without a junior in any other court or tribunal in India. He is also not entitled to accept instructions to draw pleadings or affidavits, advise on evidence or do any drafting work of an analogous kind in any court or tribunal in India or undertake conveyancing work of any kind whatsoever but this prohibition shall not extend to settling any such matter as aforesaid in consultation with a junior.[1] Advocate-on-Record

Only these Advocates are entitled to file any matter or document before the Supreme Court. They can also file an appearance or act for a party in the Supreme Court.[1] Other Advocates

These are Advocates whose names are entered on the roll of any State Bar Council maintained under the Advocates Act, 1961 and they can appear and argue any matter on behalf of a party in the Supreme Court but they are not entitled to file any document or matter before the Court.[1] The Supreme Court Building and its architecture

The main block of the Supreme Court building was built on a square plot of 22 acres and the building was designed by chief architect Ganesh Bhikaji Deolalikar who was the first Indian to head CPWD and designed the Supreme Court Building in an Indo – British architectural style. He was succeeded by Shridher Krishna Joglekar. The Court moved into the present building in 1958. The building is shaped to project the image of scales of justice with the Central Wing of the building corresponding to the centre beam of the Scales. In 1979, two new wings—the East Wing and the West Wing—were added to the complex. In all there are 15[2] court rooms in the various wings of the building. The Chief Justice's Court is the largest of the courtrooms located in the centre of the Central Wing. Composition Supreme Court of India Size of the court

As originally enacted, the Constitution of India provided for a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and seven lower-ranking Judges—leaving it to Indian Parliament to increase this number. In the early years, a full bench of the Supreme Court sat together to hear the cases presented before them. As the work of the Court increased and cases began to accumulate, Parliament increased the number of Judges from the original eight in 1950 to eleven in 1956, fourteen in 1960, eighteen in 1978, twenty-six in 1986 and thirty one in 2008. As the number of the Judges has increased, they have sat in smaller Benches of two or three (referred to as a Division Bench)—coming together in larger Benches of five or more (referred to as a Constitutional Bench) only when required to settle fundamental questions of law. Any bench may refer the case under consideration up to a larger bench if the need to do so arises.[3] Eligibility

The person must be a citizen of India[4] Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession for at least five years,[4] or   An Advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession for at least ten years,[4] or    The person must be, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.[4]

A Judge of a High Court or retired Judge of the Supreme Court or High Courts may be appointed as an ad-hoc Judge of the Supreme Court. Appointments and the Collegium

Judges of Supreme Court used to be appointed by the President of India, who acted on the advice of the Union Cabinet. Subsequent to the rulings in the Three Judges Cases (1982, 1993, 1998), the President has to appoint judges who have been chosen by the Supreme Court's collegium – a closed group comprising the Chief Justice of India and the four senior most associate judges of the court.[5] The Union Cabinet and Parliament have almost no role to play in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court or to any of India's twenty-four High Courts.[6] The Supreme Court collegium appoints judges to its own bench as well as to benches of the High Courts. It also appoints Chief Justices of the various High Courts. The proceedings of the collegium are not public and have been fiercely guarded by the court, with rulings against right to information (RTI) applicants who sought to know how appointments are made.

The position of Chief Justice of India is attained on the basis of seniority amongst the judges serving on the court.[3] Tenure

Supreme Court judges retire at the age of 65. A judge of Supreme Court can be removed by the procedure prescribed in Article 124(4) of Constitution of India on ground of proved misconduct or incapacity or judge resigning from his office addressed to the President of India. The procedure prescribed for removal of Supreme Court judge should not be called an impeachment procedure because this procedure is provided only for the removal of the President of India under Article 61 of Constitution of India on ground of violation of the Constitution.[3] Salary

Article 125 of the Indian Constitution leaves it to the Indian Parliament to determine the salary, other allowances, leave of absence, pension, etc. of the Supreme Court judges. However, the Parliament cannot alter any of these privileges and rights to the judge's disadvantage after his appointment.[7] A judge gets INR90,000 and the Chief Justice gets a sum of INR1,00,000.[8] Court demographics

I am proud to be an Indian. India is the only country where a member of the minority Parsi community with a population of 1,67,000, like myself, can aspire to attain the post of the Chief Justice of India. These things do not happen in our neighbouring countries. Chief Justice of India, SH Kapadia[9][10]

The Supreme Court has always maintained a wide regional representation. It also has had a good share of Judges belonging to religious and ethnic minorities. The first woman to be appointed to the Supreme Court was Justice Fatima Beevi in 1987. She was later followed by Justices Sujata Manohar, Ruma Pal and Gyan Sudha Mishra. Justice Ranjana Desai, who was elevated from the Bombay High Court is the most recent woman judge in the Supreme Court, so that for the first time there were two women (Mishra and Desai) simultaneously in the Supreme Court.

In 2000 Justice K. G. Balakrishnan became the first judge from the dalit community. In 2007 he also became the first dalit Chief Justice of India. In 2010, Justice SH Kapadia coming from a Parsi minority community became the Chief Justice of India.[9][11] The current Chief Justice, P Sathasivam, was sworn in on 1 July 2013 and will hold the office till 2014. Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court has original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction under Articles 32, 131–144 of the Constitution. Original jurisdiction

The court has exclusive original jurisdiction over any dispute between the Government of India and one or more States or between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more States on the other or between two or more States, if and insofar as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or of fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. In addition, Article 32 of the Constitution grants an extensive original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in regard to enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It is empowered to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari to enforce them. Appellate jurisdiction

The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked by a certificate granted by the High Court concerned under Articles 132(1), 133(1) or 134 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in both civil and criminal cases, involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court can also grant special leave under article 136(1) to appeal from a judgment. Parliament has the power to enlarge the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and has exercised this power in case of criminal appeals by enacting the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.

Appeals also lie to the Supreme Court in civil matters if the High Court concerned certifies : (a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance, and (b) that, in the opinion of the High Court, the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. In criminal cases, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court if the High Court (a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than 10 years, or (b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any Court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than 10 years, or (c) certified that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. Parliament is authorised to confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court. Advisory jurisdiction

The Supreme Court has special advisory jurisdiction in matters which may specifically be referred to it by the President of India under Article 143 of the Constitution.There are provisions for reference or appeal to this Court under Article 317(1) of the Constitution, Section 257 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 7(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, Section 130-A of the Customs Act, 1962, Section 35-H of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Section 82C of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Appeals also lie to the Supreme Court under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, Advocates Act, 1961, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Customs Act, 1962, Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970, Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities Act, 1992, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Rules

The Constitution of India under Article 145 empowers the supreme court to frame its own rules for regulating the practice and procedure of the Court as and when required (with the approval of the President). Accordingly, "Supreme Court Rules, 1950" were framed. They were replaced by the present rules called as "Supreme Court Rules, 1966" Reporting and citation

Supreme Court Reports is the official journal of Reportable Supreme Court Decisions. It is published under the authority of the Supreme Court of India by the Controller of Publications, Government of India, Delhi.[12] Judicial independence

The Constitution seeks to ensure the independence of Supreme Court Judges in various ways. In Three Judges Cases, the court held that a Supreme Court judge can be appointed by the President only on the recommendations of the collegium system as mentioned earlier. A Judge of the Supreme Court cannot be removed from office except by an order of the President passed after an address in each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting, and presented to the President in the same Session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The salary and allowances of a judge of the Supreme Court cannot be reduced after appointment. A person who has been a Judge of the Supreme Court is debarred from practising in any court of law or before any other authority in India. Power to review its own judgements Further information: Review petition

Under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, the Supreme Court may review its judgment or order but no application for review is to be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Powers to punish contempt

Under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution the Supreme Court has been vested with power to punish anyone for contempt of any court in India including itself. The Supreme Court performed an unprecedented action when it directed a sitting Minister of the state of Maharashtra, Swaroop Singh Naik,[13] to be jailed for 1-month on a charge of contempt of court on 12 May 2006. This was the first time that a serving Minister was ever jailed.[14][15] Landmark judgments: Judiciary-Legislature confrontations Land reform (early confrontation)

After some of the courts overturned state laws redistributing land from zamindar (landlord) estates on the grounds that the laws violated the zamindars' fundamental rights, the Parliament of India passed the First Amendment to the Constitution in 1951 followed by the Fourth Amendment in 1955 to protect its authority to implement land redistribution. The Supreme Court countered these amendments in 1967 when it ruled in Golaknath v. State of Punjab[16] that Parliament did not have the power to abrogate fundamental rights, including the provisions on private property.[17] Other laws deemed unconstitutional

On 1 February 1970, the Supreme Court invalidated the government-sponsored Bank Nationalization Bill that had been passed by Parliament in August 1969.

The Supreme Court also rejected as unconstitutional a presidential order of 7 September 1970, that abolished the titles, privileges, and privy purses of the former rulers of India's old princely states.

Response from Parliament

In reaction to the decisions of the Supreme Court, in 1971 the Parliament of India passed an amendment empowering itself to amend any provision of the constitution, including the fundamental rights.

The Parliament of India passed the 25th Amendment, making legislative decisions concerning proper land compensation non-justiciable.

The Parliament of India passed an amendment to the Constitution of India, which added a constitutional article abolishing princely privileges and privy purses.

Counter-response from the Supreme Court

The Court ruled that the basic structure of the constitution cannot be altered for convenience. On 24 April 1973, the Supreme Court responded to the parliamentary offensive by ruling in Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala that although these amendments were constitutional, the court still reserved for itself the discretion to reject any constitutional amendments passed by Parliament by declaring that the amendments cannot change the constitution's "basic structure". Emergency and Government of India

The independence of judiciary was severely curtailed [18] during the Indian Emergency (1975-1977) of Indira Gandhi. The constitutional rights of imprisoned persons were restricted under Preventive detention laws passed by the parliament. In the case of Shiva Kant Shukla Additional District Magistrate of Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla, popularly known as the Habeas Corpus case, a bench of five seniormost judges of Supreme court ruled in favour of state's right for unrestricted powers of detention during emergency. Justices A.N. Ray, P. N. Bhagwati, Y. V. Chandrachud, and M.H. Beg, stated in the majority decision:[19]

(under the declaration of emergency) no person has any locus to move any writ petition under Art. 226 before a High Court for habeas corpus or any other writ or order or direction to challenge the legality of an order of detention.

The only dissenting opinion was from Justice H. R. Khanna, who stated:

detention without trial is an anathema to all those who love personal liberty... A dissent is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting Judge believes the court to have been betrayed.[19]

It is believed that before delivering his dissenting opinion, Justice Khanna had mentioned to his sister: I have prepared my judgment, which is going to cost me the Chief Justice-ship of India."[20] In January 1977, Justice Khanna was superseded despite being the most senior judge at the time and thereby Government broke the convention of appointing only the senior most judge to the position of Chief Justice of India. Justice Khanna remains a legendary figure among the legal fraternity in India for this decision.

The New York Times, wrote of this opinion: "The submission of an independent judiciary to absolutist government is virtually the last step in the destruction of a democratic society; and the Indian Supreme Court's decision appears close to utter surrender."

During the emergency period, the government also passed the 39th amendment, which sought to limit judicial review for the election of the Prime Minister; only a body constituted by Parliament could review this election.[21] Subsequently, the parliament, with most opposition members in jail during the emergency, passed the 42nd Amendment which prevented any court from reviewing any amendment to the constitution with the exception of procedural issues concerning ratification. A few years after the emergency, however, the Supreme court rejected the absoluteness of the 42nd amendment and reaffirmed its power of judicial review in the Minerva Mills case (1980). Post-1980: an assertive Supreme Court

After Indira Gandhi lost elections in 1977, the new government of Morarji Desai, and especially law minister Shanti Bhushan (who had earlier argued for the detenues in the Habeas Corpus case), introduced a number of amendments making it more difficult to declare and sustain an emergency, and reinstated much of the power to the Supreme Court. It is said that the Basic Structure doctrine, created in Kesavananda, was strengthened in Indira Gandhi's case and set in stone in Minerva Mills.

The Supreme Court's creative and expansive interpretations of Article 21 (Life and Personal Liberty), primarily after the Emergency period, have given rise to a new jurisprudence of public interest litigation that has vigorously promoted many important economic and social rights (constitutionally protected but not enforceable) including, but not restricted to, the rights to free education, livelihood, a clean environment, food and many others. Civil and political rights (traditionally protected in the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Indian Constitution) have also been expanded and more fiercely protected. These new interpretations have opened the avenue for litigation on a number of important issues. It is interesting to note that the pioneer of the expanded interpretation of Article 21, Chief Justice P N Bhagwati, was also one of the judges who heard the ADM Jabalpur case, and held that the Right to Life could not be claimed during Emergency. ==Recent important cases

Among the important pronouncements of the Supreme Court post 2000 is the Coelho case (I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (Judgment of 11the January 2007). A unanimous Bench of 9 judges reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine. It held that a constitutional amendment which entails violation of any fundamental rights which the Court regards as forming part of the basic structure of the Constitution, then the same can be struck down depending upon its impact and consequences. The judgment clearly imposes further limitations on the constituent power of Parliament with respect to the principles underlying certain fundamental rights. The judgment in Coelho has in effect restored the decision in Golak Nath regarding non-amendability of the Constitution on account of infraction of fundamental rights, contrary to the judgment in Kesavananda Bharati case.

Another important decision was of the five-judge Bench in Ashoka Kumara Thakur v. Union of India; where the constitutional validity of Central Educational Institutions (Reservations in Admissions) Act, 2006 was upheld, subject to the "creamy layer" criteria. Importantly, the Court refused to follow the 'strict scrutiny' standards of review followed by the United States Supreme Court. At the same time, the Court has applied the strict scrutiny standards in Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2007) ([1]) 2G spectrum scam Further information: 2G spectrum scam

The Supreme Court declared allotment of spectrum as "unconstitutional and arbitrary" and quashed all the 122 licenses issued in 2008 during tenure of A. Raja (then minister for communications & IT), the main official accused in the 2G scam case.[22] Black money Further information: Indian black money

The government refused to disclose details of about 18 Indians holding accounts in LGT Bank, Liechtenstein, evoking a sharp response from a Bench comprising Justices B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar. The court ordered Special investigation team (SIT) to probe the matter.[23][24][25] Lack of enthusiasm made the court create a special investigative team (SIT).[26] Minority reservations

The SC refused to stay the Andhra High Court judgement quashing 4.5% sub-quota for minorities under OBC reservation quota of 27% .[27] 'Bold text Criticism Corruption and misconduct of judges

2008 saw the Supreme Court embroiled in several controversies, from serious allegations of corruption at the highest level of the judiciary,[28] expensive private holidays at the tax payers expense,[29] refusal to divulge details of judges' assets to the public,[30] secrecy in the appointments of judges',[31] to refusal to make information public under the Right to Information Act.[32] The Chief Justice K. G. Balakrishnan invited a lot of criticism for his comments on his post not being that of a public servant, but that of a constitutional authority.[33] He later went back on this stand.[34] The judiciary has come in for serious criticisms from former Presidents of India Pratibha Patil and A. P. J. Abdul Kalam for failure in handling its duties.[35] Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, has stated that corruption is one of the major challenges facing the judiciary, and suggested that there is an urgent need to eradicate this menace.[36]

The Cabinet Secretary of the Indian government introduced the Judges Inquiry (Amendment) Bill 2008 in Parliament for setting up of a panel called the National Judicial Council, headed by the Chief Justice of India, that will probe into allegations of corruption and misconduct by High Court and Supreme Court judges.[37][38] Pendency of cases

According to Supreme Court newsletter, there are 58,519 cases pending in the Supreme Court, out of which 37,385 are pending for more than a year, at the end of 2011. Excluding connected cases, there are still 33892 pending cases.[39]