Supreme Court: Jurisdiction, Original Jurisdiction, Appeals, Article 32, and Collegium System
The Supreme Court of India is the highest court of appeal, the guardian of the Constitution, and the final interpreter of constitutional law. Established under Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 124 to 147), it is a single court operating from New Delhi with jurisdiction over the entire territory of India. The Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of 34 other judges. Judges are appointed by the President under Article 124(2), but the appointment process has been the subject of the most contentious constitutional debates in India’s history, culminating in the collegium system that was restored after the failed National Judicial Appointments Commission experiment in 2016. For the RAS examination, the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, its powers of judicial review, and the procedures for appointing judges are all high-yield areas that recur every year.
The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under Article 131 gives it exclusive right to hear disputes between states or between the Union and states, directly and without going through High Courts. The appellate jurisdiction under Articles 132, 133, and 134 provides the Supreme Court with the power to hear appeals from High Courts in civil, criminal, and constitutional matters. The Article 32 jurisdiction, which is the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, is perhaps the most extraordinary provision in the Constitution. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called Article 32 the heart and soul of the Constitution because it allows any citizen whose fundamental rights have been violated to approach the Supreme Court directly for relief. The collegium system, established by the Second Judges Case in 1993 and refined by the Third Judges Case in 1998, governs how judges are appointed to the Supreme Court and High Courts. The system was introduced because the original appointment process was found insufficiently protective of judicial independence from executive interference, and the attempted replacement by NJAC in 2016 was struck down by the Supreme Court.
🟢 Lite — Quick Review (1h–1d)
The Supreme Court has three kinds of jurisdiction that the RAS student must keep distinct. Original jurisdiction means the Supreme Court hears a matter directly for the first time, without any lower court having decided it. Under Article 131, only the Supreme Court can try disputes between two or more states, or between a state and the Union. This is exclusive jurisdiction, meaning no other court in India can hear these cases. Article 131 does not cover personal disputes between individuals, service matters of government employees, or disputes that are merely political rather than legal in nature.
Appellate jurisdiction means the Supreme Court hears appeals from lower courts. Article 132 allows appeals in constitutional cases when the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law relating to the interpretation of the Constitution. Article 134 allows criminal appeals to the Supreme Court when the High Court has reversed an acquittal leading to a death sentence, or when the High Court withdraws a case from a sessions court and convict the accused. Article 136 is the most flexible power, allowing the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment in any case. This is not a right but a discretionary power, yet in practice the Court grants leave liberally in cases of gross injustice.
Article 32 is the provision that makes the Supreme Court accessible to citizens for enforcement of fundamental rights. Any person can approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 if their fundamental right has been violated. The Supreme Court can issue any order or writ necessary to enforce those rights. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the heart and soul of the Constitution because it is the direct constitutional guarantee of access to the highest court for the protection of fundamental rights. Unlike Article 226 (which is for High Courts and covers any legal right), Article 32 is specifically for fundamental rights. A critical point: Article 32 cannot be suspended even during Emergency, unlike other fundamental rights under Article 359. The collegium system is the process for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. For Supreme Court appointments, the Chief Justice of India consults the four senior-most judges and then recommends names to the President. For High Court appointments, the High Court collegium proposes names, which go through the state government and the Law Ministry before reaching the Supreme Court collegium for final recommendation. The government can raise concerns but cannot outright reject a recommendation.
Exam tip: Students frequently confuse Article 32 with Article 226. Both allow approaching a court for fundamental rights, but Article 32 is specifically for the Supreme Court and only for fundamental rights. Article 226 is for High Courts and covers any legal right, not just fundamental rights. Article 32 remedies are also broader because the Supreme Court can issue any order necessary to enforce fundamental rights. Another common mistake is thinking that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court covers all disputes involving states. It does not. Article 131 original jurisdiction is limited to disputes between states, between the Union and states, and between states on one side and the Union on the other. Personal disputes between individuals are never under Article 131.
🟡 Standard — Regular Study (2d–2mo)
Original Jurisdiction under Article 131
Article 131 gives the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over disputes between two or more states, disputes between a state and the Union, and disputes between states on one side and the Union on the other. The word exclusive is important here. No other court in India has jurisdiction over these matters. State border disputes like Karnataka versus Maharashtra over Belgaum are filed directly in the Supreme Court under Article 131. The Cauvery water disputes between Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Puducherry also went through Article 131 proceedings.
There are important limitations on Article 131 jurisdiction. The dispute must be a legal dispute involving a specific justiciable right under the Constitution or a statute. Purely political disputes between states are not entertainable. Matters under the Tenth Schedule (defection disputes) are excluded. Matters relating to the existence of a state or changes in state boundaries can be referred to the Supreme Court under Article 131 but are handled through special parliamentary procedures as well. The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Union of India clarified that it will not entertain disputes where states are merely aggrieved by Union policies; the dispute must be a legal dispute with a specific right at stake.
Appellate Jurisdiction
Article 132 allows appeals to the Supreme Court in constitutional matters when a High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law relating to the interpretation of the Constitution. The certification requirement has been interpreted broadly. In Bhopal Sugar Industries vs. DC, the Court held that once a constitutional question is raised and it is a substantial one, the appeal is maintainable even without formal certification if the Court is satisfied the question is substantial.
Article 133 governs civil appeals. Appeals in civil cases lie to the Supreme Court if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance requiring Supreme Court guidance, and the value of the subject matter exceeds the prescribed monetary limit. The monetary limit has been changed by amendment over the years.
Article 134 governs criminal appeals. An appeal from a High Court in a criminal matter lies to the Supreme Court if the High Court has reversed an acquittal and sentenced the accused to death, or has withdrawn for hearing to itself a case from a sessions court involving the same substantially, or certifies the case as fit for appeal. An important point: the Supreme Court in criminal appeals does not retry facts but examines whether legal principles were correctly applied.
Article 136 is the most frequently used avenue for approaching the Supreme Court. It allows the Court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, order, or sentence in any case or matter. This is not a right. It is a discretionary power, but the Court grants leave liberally in cases of gross injustice, errors of law, or violations of fundamental rights. SLPs have been used to challenge electoral verdicts, High Court judgments, and interim orders. The only broad categories where SLPs have been refused are military justice matters, certain revenue and tax matters, and disciplinary proceedings of public servants.
Article 32 — The Heart of the Constitution
Article 32 guarantees the right to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The remedies under Article 32 are not limited to the traditional writs. The Supreme Court can issue any order, direction, or writ it deems appropriate for enforcing fundamental rights. Originally, only the person whose fundamental right was violated could approach under Article 32. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India in 1984, the Supreme Court liberalised locus standi and held that any public-spirited citizen or organisation can file a public interest petition for enforcement of fundamental rights of the poor and disadvantaged.
Under Article 32, the Supreme Court can issue writs of habeas corpus for freedom from illegal detention, mandamus to command a public official to perform their duty, prohibition to a lower court to stop proceedings beyond jurisdiction, certiorari to quash orders of lower courts, and quo warranto to challenge the appointment of a person to a public office. The key cases on Article 32 include Girija Mukherjee vs. Union of India where even an illegitimately born child was held to have the right to maintenance under Article 21 read with Article 32, Khellaf Khan vs. Principal Judge where Article 32 was held applicable even at the stage of investigation or trial, Vineet Narain vs. Union of India used Article 32 and Article 142 to issue continuing mandamus for the Enforcement Directorate, and Prakash Singh vs. Union of India where directives to state governments on police reforms were issued under Article 32.
Article 32 cannot be suspended even during Emergency. Article 359 suspends the right to approach courts for enforcement of fundamental rights during Emergency, but Article 32 itself is saved. This was confirmed in the Emergency-era cases where people still approached the Supreme Court under Article 32.
Collegium System
The original Article 124(2) said the President appoints judges after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as the President may deem necessary. In the First Judges Case in 1982, S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the consultation with the Chief Justice of India need not be binding. The executive could override the CJI recommendation if it had strong prima facie reasons. This led to decades of concerns about executive interference in judicial appointments.
The Second Judges Case in 1993, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India, reversed the First Judges Case. A Constitution Bench held that judicial appointments must be based on the principle of seniority-cum-merit and the CJIs opinion (formed after consultation with two senior judges) should be given the greatest weight. The consultation process must be real and effective. This established the collegium principle.
The Third Judges Case in 1998 further elaborated the system, requiring the CJI to consult a broader panel of four senior judges before making recommendations. This expanded consultative group is how the term collegium originated.
The National Judicial Appointments Commission was created by the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act in 2014. It comprised the CJI, two senior judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons. The NJAC was challenged and struck down in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India in 2016. A five-judge Constitution Bench by a 4 to 1 majority held that including two eminent persons selected by the executive violated the separation of powers, gave the executive an effective veto over judicial appointments, and threatened judicial independence which is part of the basic structure. The collegium system was restored.
The current three-step collegium process for Supreme Court appointments works as follows. First, the CJI identifies a potential candidate, usually a senior High Court judge. Second, the CJI consults the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court and if the collegium approves, it recommends to the President. Third, the government through the Law Ministry processes the file. The government can raise concerns but cannot outright reject. If the government raises concerns, the collegium reconsiders. If the collegium reaffirms its recommendation, the recommendation stands and the President appoints. For High Court appointments, the Chief Justice of the High Court proposes names to the High Court collegium, which then goes to the Chief Minister, Governor, Union Law Ministry, and finally the Supreme Court collegium before the President appoints.
Reference to Article 124A and Article 344
Article 124A, inserted by the 99th Amendment, was the National Judicial Appointments Commission provision. It was struck down along with the 99th Amendment in 2016. Article 344 relates to the Salaries and Conditions of Service of the Finance Commission. The reference in the task likely points to Article 124A as a now-struck-down provision that is still relevant for examination purposes as it demonstrates the constitutional tension between executive involvement in judicial appointments and judicial independence.
🔴 Extended — Deep Study (3mo+)
Detailed Analysis of Judicial Appointment Cases
The First Judges Case in 1982, S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, established that the consultation with the CJI was not binding on the President. The executive could reject or modify judicial appointments if it had strong prima facie reasons. This led to a period where governments appointed judges based on political considerations, leading to significant controversy about the independence of the judiciary.
The Second Judges Case in 1993 fundamentally changed the appointment process. The Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India held that appointment of judges must be based on seniority-cum-merit and the CJIs opinion formed after consultation with two senior judges must be given primary weight. The consultation process must be meaningful and effective. This was the birth of the collegium system.
The Third Judges Case in 1998 elaborated the Second Judges Case. The Court held that for Supreme Court appointments, the CJI must consult a collegium of four senior judges, not just two. This broad consultation was designed to prevent any single individual from dominating the appointment process. The CJI would need to obtain the views of four senior judges before making a recommendation.
The Supreme Court Collegium case of 2015 arose when the collegium recommended the appointment of two judges and the government raised objections. The collegium reissued the recommendation, asserting its primacy. This case highlighted the tension between the collegium and the government.
The NJAC case in 2016, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India, struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act. The Court held that the basic structure of the Constitution includes judicial independence. Including executive nominees in the appointment commission would compromise this independence. The Court restored the collegium system by a 4 to 1 majority.
Original Jurisdiction Limits
Article 131 original jurisdiction has specific boundaries. Personal disputes between individuals, even if one party is the government, are not covered. Service matters of government employees (including judges) are typically under the jurisdiction of service tribunals or High Courts under Article 226, not the Supreme Court directly under Article 131. The Supreme Court has also held that it will not entertain disputes that are essentially political in character, such as disputes over which political party should form the government in a state.
Article 32 versus Article 226
Article 32 allows approach to the Supreme Court specifically for enforcement of fundamental rights. Article 226 allows approach to High Courts for enforcement of fundamental rights OR any other legal right. Article 226 is therefore broader in terms of rights covered. However, Article 32 remedies are considered more powerful because the Supreme Court can issue any order necessary for complete justice under Article 142.
During Emergency, Article 226 can be suspended under Article 359. Article 32 cannot be suspended even during Emergency. This makes Article 32 the ultimate safeguard for fundamental rights.
Both provisions allow public interest litigation. The Supreme Court liberalised locus standi under Article 32 in Bandhua Mukti Morcha, allowing any citizen to approach the Court for enforcement of fundamental rights of disadvantaged groups. High Courts have similarly liberalised standing under Article 226.
Collegium Composition and Procedure
For Supreme Court appointments, the collegium consists of the CJI and the four senior-most judges. The process begins when the CJI identifies a potential candidate. Usually the candidate is a senior judge of a High Court with a strong reputation. The CJI then consults the four senior judges. If a majority in the collegium agrees, the name is recommended to the President. The government can raise objections with material information. If the government raises objections, the collegium reconsiders. If the collegium reaffirms its recommendation, the President must appoint.
For High Court appointments, the process is longer. The Chief Justice of the High Court initiates proposals, which go to the High Court collegium (Chief Justice plus two senior judges). The proposal then goes to the Chief Minister of the state, who adds state government inputs and sends to the Governor. The Governor then sends it to the Union Law Ministry. The Ministry processes it and sends it to the Supreme Court collegium. The Supreme Court collegium examines the proposal and makes its recommendation. The President then appoints.
The government has sometimes raised concerns about the lack of diversity in judicial appointments, the opacity of the process, and the absence of formal criteria. The Supreme Court has defended the system as necessary for judicial independence. Various reform proposals have been made including the insertion of transparency provisions and formal criteria, but none have been enacted into law.
Article 124 — Establishment, Qualifications, Removal
Article 124 establishes the Supreme Court with the CJI at the head and such other judges as Parliament may prescribe, maximum 34. The first Supreme Court in 1950 had 8 judges. The current maximum is 34 including the CJI.
Qualifications under Article 124(3): A person is qualified for appointment as a Supreme Court judge if they have been a judge of a High Court for at least 5 years, or have been an advocate of a High Court for at least 10 years, or are a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President. Most appointments come from senior High Court judges.
Removal under Article 124(4): Judges can be removed by the President on a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament supported by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting in each House. Only two judges have ever been removed from the Supreme Court. The removal process is effectively impossible due to its supermajority requirement.
Advisory Jurisdiction under Article 143
Article 143 allows the President to refer to the Supreme Court any question of law or fact of public importance. The Supreme Court may report its opinion, but the President is not obligated to accept it. Notable referrals include In re: Presidential Election in 1987 on whether an outgoing President could contest fresh elections, In re: Kerala Education Bill in 1958 on whether religious instructions in aided schools violated Article 28, and In re: Hindu Marriage Act in 1972 on validity of certain provisions.
The Court in some cases has declined to answer questions if answering would involve determining political questions beyond judicial competence. However, the Court has generally been willing to give advisory opinions on important constitutional questions.
Practice Problems
A common examination question asks about the difference between original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Students should note that original jurisdiction under Article 131 is exclusive and covers only inter-state and Union-state disputes. All other matters heard by the Supreme Court are appellate.
Another common question involves the difference between Article 32 and Article 226. Students should focus on the fact that Article 32 is specifically for fundamental rights and for the Supreme Court, while Article 226 is for any legal right and for High Courts. Article 32 cannot be suspended during Emergency but Article 226 can be.
Previous year questions from RAS have asked about the composition and powers of the Supreme Court, the collegium system and its criticism, the basic structure doctrine in the context of judicial appointments, the difference between original and appellate jurisdiction, and the NJAC judgment and its implications.
⚠️ Exam Tips and Common Traps:
- Article 131 original jurisdiction is exclusive to the Supreme Court. No other court can hear state-state or Union-state disputes.
- Article 136 (special leave petition) is discretionary. It is not a right of appeal. The Court may refuse to hear an SLP for any reason.
- Article 32 cannot be suspended during Emergency. This is a critical distinction from Article 226 writ jurisdiction.
- The collegium system was restored after NJAC was struck down in 2016, Khehar case. Current process: CJI plus four senior judges recommend for Supreme Court. High Court collegium for High Court appointments.
- Second Judges Case in 1993 established seniority-cum-merit and made CJI consultation binding. Third Judges Case in 1998 expanded the consultative group to four senior judges.
- Article 129 gives the Supreme Court contempt jurisdiction. Both civil and criminal contempt are punishable.
- Article 141 declares that law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India. Obiter dicta are not strictly binding but carry persuasive weight.
- Article 137 gives review jurisdiction. Within 30 days of judgment, a party can file a review petition limited to errors of law apparent on the face of the record.